1499
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by GrymEdm@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tjhart85@kbin.social 144 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Same with Google's ads in general. For a long time they were whitelisted by default on just about every adblock list out there because they were so unobtrusive it didn't make sense to bother blocking them, especially when you compared them to the other ads that were common at the time. They were also generally relevant ads, so people actually did click on them and use them since it actually related to the thing they were searching for.

They're obviously more profitable now, but you have to wonder by how much and if they'd be a more trusted company today (and what's that worth monetarily) if they hadn't gone down this race to the bottom.

ETA: Part of what I mean is that now they create things like Stadia and most people didn't even bother trying it because they knew it'd hit the Google Graveyard in a few years. Had Google been a more trusted company, people may have been willing to give it a try and they could possibly have printed money since by all accounts the service was actually pretty good.

[-] Twitches@lemm.ee 48 points 6 months ago

Instead I'm putting great energy to get away from Google, along with a lot of other people

We are an insignificant amount. Most people likely don’t even know how to change the default search engine on their phones.

[-] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Most people don’t even know what a search engine is by that term. They just know they type things into search boxes and click things that come up. Greater majority of phone users don’t even use the browser, it’s just endless apps

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] theshonen8899@lemmy.world 87 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm a software engineer at AWS and work on video content delivery for services like Netflix. The idea that one single ad could cover the cost of delivering a video that's been replicated in multiple servers, multiple regions, multiple countries throughout the world is pretty hilarious. No matter how much money you think YouTube is making I can almost guarantee it's not enough. There is a reason there is no significant competition in this space, it makes no money.

[-] joneskind@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

What’s less sustainable is centralized web. You must know that since you work for Amazon, right?

When PopcornTime was still a thing you could watch adfree any movie you’d like even in 4K because resources were shared through peer to peer.

Now, YouTube gets up to 12$ RPM, content creators get maybe 40% of that. With 2 prerolls and 2 midrolls + banners they get plenty enough money to make things work. Google has the most aggressive VASTs of the market. They are everywhere, called multiple times per pages.

Spare us your tears.

Besides, no significant competition? Is that a joke?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] daniskarma@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Genuine question.

How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?

I doubt they had been just sinking money for the kind of their hearts.

I do not know how much it cost to run a service like YouTube. Or how much money they make by ads or other ways. But they have been running for long enough to be a successful business.

And it's just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 21 points 6 months ago

How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?

Investor money, then Google money. Video streaming requires fuckloads of storage and is a HUGE bandwidth hog, especially if people want to watch stuff at 1080p or higher resolutions. Youtube is a money pit, but it's a major and nearly untouchable internet power, especially given its size and reach.

And it’s just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.

The "easy money" from loans with very low interest rates has dried up, also Google being Google.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 70 points 6 months ago

Capitalists don't care about making quality products/services.

They care about squeezing more profit out of you as time goes on.

[-] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 27 points 6 months ago

Bad capitalists, yes. The trend of "maximize profit this quarter at the expense of everything else" is a recent (meaning a few decades old) idea.

Once upon a time the boards of publicly traded companies could think long term and sacrifice short term gains without getting fired by shareholders. When a large firm prioritizes long term success efficiency still matters but so do things like building reputation through quality and retaining talent - the things sorely missing from publicly traded firms today.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago

The commodification of securities has been one of the most ruinous trends in human history.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 69 points 6 months ago

I refused to use adblock for years. Not because I thought Youtube needed MORE money, but because I did realize that a business ultimately only continues operating as long as the business model is sustainable. I endured, through occasional ads, ads at the bottom, then through ads every time a video was watched, then ads in the middle of videos, and even two ads before every video.

But three unskippable ads was where I drew the fucking line. Now I use adblock for Youtube and Youtube only.

[-] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago

I like to watch video game speedruns. I especially enjoy the really long, challenging ones. Watching a 2 hour video on YouTube without an ad block is basically impossible at this point.

[-] hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's nice of you, but it appears that the ad-supported business model doesn't work. It just results in enshittification and surveillance.

"We cannot have a society in which, if two people wish to communicate, the only way that it can happen is if it's financed by a third person who wishes to manipulate them."

Jaron Lanier: How we need to remake the internet

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 69 points 6 months ago

I was fine with giving them 5 seconds of attention in exchange for a video. Then they added more and more, and moved the skip button SOMETIMES. It's straight up disrespectful.

[-] ShadowCatEXE@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago

I also HATE that if you miss the skip button on the first of multiple ads, they disable the skip button for another number of seconds.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] halvar@lemm.ee 63 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm not here to defend the soulless multi-million dollar corporation, but we don't actually know how much money it costs for youtube to stay up. The scale they are operating on is immense, I wouldn't be surprised, if they were still making a loss with 10 midroll ads.

[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 56 points 6 months ago

They almost certainly are running at a loss. Same as Twitch, their parent companies are generally okay with it, because they also serve as pretty solid tech demos for other services they offer (YouTube runs on Google Cloud Platform, Twitch runs on Amazon Web Services), and that pays off indirectly.

Moreover, their parent companies can use them as free advertising. Google about to launch a new phone? Guess what you’re gonna see ads for!

I think the term for this is “loss leader”

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 12 points 6 months ago

Big businesses are perfectly capable of releasing financial documents indicating what branches are making and losing money. If they don't do so, there's a good reason for it. Often that reason involves them doing things that are either shady or lying to the public about what's actually happening.

We should not give them the benefit of the doubt in situations like this, because we would only be feeding their manipulation tactics.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Fleppensteijn@feddit.nl 63 points 6 months ago

I accidentally watched a YouTube video on a browser without blocking. It started with an ad. I thought I'd just endure it this time. Then another ad. OK, just this time then. Suddenly, another ad in the middle of the video. I gave up. Who'd have the patience to sit through this?

Then there's Google's habit of completely ignoring the browser's language settings so I have to sit though ads I don't even understand.

[-] spikederailed@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Then there's Google's habit of completely ignoring the browser's language settings so I have to sit though ads I don't even understand

I used to occasionally watch YouTube on my lunch break when I would go into the office. I loved getting ads in Spanish, the office was in Greenville,SC not a large Spanish native population. I have premium on my account but don't like signing in personal account on work machines.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 6 months ago

Was YouTube ever profitable?

[-] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I actually had trouble finding that out (although I only looked for like, 15 minutes). It's apparently difficult to determine according to some tech websites. I do have this chart that says since 2017 YouTube ad revenue has been 7-11% of Google's global revenue but I don't know if that = profit. Decided to meme anyways because I have ads blocked on PC but still see them on my phone.

[-] TxzK@lemmy.zip 50 points 6 months ago

"I have ads blocked on PC but still see them on my phone."

If you're on Android, ReVanced. And if you're on iOS, well get fucked or something, idk

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 6 months ago

I just use Firefox with extensions on mobile honestly

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Evilschnuff@feddit.de 14 points 6 months ago

In iOS you can use Yattee and link to an alternative Frontend. Works well for me.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 20 points 6 months ago

Hosting a streaming service is incredibly expensive. Especially at the scale of YouTube. I can imagine YouTube is costing far more for Google than Search itself.

My guess is that YouTube has never really been profitable, which is why they’re pushing users to buy Premium.

[-] splonglo@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

Youtube has always claimed that it doesn't turn a profit but I don't believe them. My reasoning is that if the server costs are more than the revenue today, then they're going to be worse tomorrow. A gorillian gigabytes of data are uploaded to that thing every nanosecond. A company can't get exponentially less profitable every second and still survive. And what else is there to prop it up? Google ad results? No way is Youtube not profitable. They're saying that to avoid tax.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 50 points 6 months ago

That, and the absolute curbstomping of creativity through their copyright enforcement methods has gutted the core of a once great service. We are simply watching this thing shamble on to find a place to die: like a heart-shot elk bounding off into the bushes

[-] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

That's an unexpectedly poetic and melancholic way of portraying some lamentable decisions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 40 points 6 months ago

Fuck YT, but bad meme. YouTube has never been profitable

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Whoa

Becoming ever more obnoxious with ad placement because your ad-supported service is losing money and you don't know what else to do is a classic late-stage-enshittification step. It is usually the last one before the service becomes openly hostile to its users and partners and becomes a mostly-worthless relic. I did not think Youtube was at that stage or even close to it but maybe it is.

I can't really tell if Youtube is losing money or not, but it creates about $8 billion per quarter, and Google's overall operating expense is $55 billion per quarter, and I think it actually might be a safe assumption that Youtube is a pretty decent amount of that expense given its scale and its storage, bandwidth, and employee-resources requirements.

[-] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Here's the thing about YouTube. From the very beginning, it was a video-hosting platform. Users create content. They upload the content to YouTube's servers. Other users view the content, and upload their own. A simple formula, no? That's why their pre-Google slogan was "Broadcast Yourself". The thing is, storing video data long-term is expensive. This is where Google comes into play, because, unless you've got Google's money, you cannot afford to store literally 100s of Yottabytes of video data, not for very long, anyway. Even if YouTube becomes a "mostly-worthless relic", there's nobody who can readily replace it. I suppose someone could create a fediverse version of it where you simply upload your own content to your own server and then sell (or give) access to other users, but it would be slow to start, and small as not everyone can afford their own server to host their content on. Or, a service that aggregates videos by scraping them from from video servers that it has access to, creating a hub for users to enjoy the content made by other users that is stored on their own servers.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 21 points 6 months ago

Yeah. As with many things, "Can this make money?" is not the same as "Is this a nice thing to have around?" and the disconnect between the two when capitalism tends to assume they'll be the same thing, is a source of unhappiness in many ways.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Ads never bothered me on YouTube.

They’re bothering me enough now that I’m going with an android phone after more than a decade on iPhones just so I can get back to YouTube the way it used to be with a decent ad blocker (better than it used to be actually).

I can’t fucking stand it, and again, it didn’t bother me before.

Want to show someone a short clip? Nah. Gotta skip two fucking ads first while you stand there looking stupid and waiting.

I’m fucking done.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 22 points 6 months ago

The irony of a Google product pissing you off so you switch from iOS to Android

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

The reason YouTube makes the ads so unbearably obnoxious is they want people to pay for premium. That's all they're doing is annoying people until they pay. I've been paying for premium since the beginning, I know it's awful, but at least I have never seen any ads.

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Until they pull a Microsoft and start throwing ads into the paid model as well.

Or like all the other streaming platforms that you paid a subscription for to not see ads, but believe it or not you now have ads.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[-] Jourei@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago

Passively?? Video streaming is anything but passive income.

[-] copd@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

Objectively wrong.

YouTube could not be profitable showing one quick ad per video, especially if it's longer content.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jaschen@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago

My father in law uses the built in YouTube app on the TV. There were 3 ads that played. The first one was 15 minutes. The second one was also around 15 minutes. The third one was an hour. One fucking hour for a 5 minutes video.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 18 points 6 months ago

Mid to late 2000s adds were very easy to avoid

Didn't have to pay to see much of anything.

Just every now and then a virus.

Soon we will return to that, except smarter and more adept at not downloading viruses and traps songs labelled as Linkin park

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Is there a blocker I can use on the android YouTube app? I put videos when I'm doing dishes, and in the last year the ads have gotten so long that if you don't skip em or can't (cause you're hands are wet) they go on for 10 minutes or more. The worst are the ads that end, but don't leave your screen until you physically press skip.

[-] AndyMFK@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 6 months ago

YouTube revanced gives me ad blocking with sponsor block included

load more comments (17 replies)
[-] Senokir@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

As someone that has used ad blockers for just about as long as I have been able to, I would like to think that this is true. However, I'm not entirely sure that it is. I've heard that a surprising percentage of people just don't even know that ad blockers exist. If that's the case then they may be very well aware of what is happening. (Using made up numbers for the sake of argument since I don't have real numbers) Like if only 5% of users use ad blockers and doubling the number of ads they show only brings that to 10% then it is certainly worth it financially. I doubt that if you were to graph that curve it would be linear - there is certainly a point where you inundate users with so many ads that even non-technical people will start learning about ad blockers. Regardless of what the real numbers are, I would be very surprised if they are making decisions this big without at least being aware of what those numbers might be. And if they can make a small amount of money indefinitely but they have evidence to suggest that they can make even more money also indefinitely then the financial motivation is obvious. Not all infinities are the same size.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Who cares about a privately owned platform? It was never ours.

Spending time there was always going to be a waste of time. Every business wants to grow like a cancer to consume us all. The next service that you use will want the same if you use another private platform.

You should consider using something that is open source and self hosted. Peertube right? Anyone got other recommendations?

[-] ealoe@ani.social 28 points 6 months ago

Until the content I want is on another platform, I don't really have a choice of what platform to go to. Of course, I can also just go outside which YouTube has made more and more appealing by the week, but telling people "just use Peertube" isn't a solution when the content they want to see simply doesn't exist there

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
1499 points (97.7% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26647 readers
3244 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS