Hacker News Reader

I think it's pretty simple and I always wondered why they didn't do it sooner. Reddit is already one of the most popular sites on the Internet - but since it was just an aggregator it constantly took users off their site. Now they're owning more and more of the content and keeping users there longer. Sure, video is expensive, but now they have a much bigger revenue opportunity. They can't monetize videos they don't host.

> Sure, video is expensive, but now they have a much bigger revenue opportunity. They can't monetize videos they don't host.

I totally see your point but shouldn't they monetize what they have now before go on to tackle other revenue venture?

Or is it better to tackle all possible revenue venture at the same time?

I feel like it's stretches them thin no?

They will be able to say they decreased their outbound user metric by X% and can report that to their investors to prove growth.

This is why I hate the business side of business.

Especially in startup, it seems like they're always looking for way to get their investor to invest more. There are many cases where I thought it being so shady.

I acknowledge business people and what they do but there are things in the this industry where it's just not for me.

Users might feel like adding a monetizing strategy to existing "free" is Reddit selling out. Whereas if you just add a "new" feature and monetize that, people are less likely to rebel

Yes, well subreddits are starting to be hostile to reddits own image service getting to the point that the service is banned on some of them.

I thought that their own image service would bring back missed revenue from imgur (which it has appeared to do since it has caught on). Unfortunately to do this they designed it to disallow direct image links (and the reason that it is banned).

Direct links have never been disallowed, either by design or policy, so not sure where you're getting that.

Reddit, by default, does practically everything in its power it can to stop you from getting the direct link to the reddit-hosted image.

Not to mention it's just downright slower than imgur.

Although, it's not like imgur is without fault nowadays, in their continued efforts to foster their own (IMO, awful) community off of the back of another (Reddit), it is nigh-on impossible to go directly to an image on the mobile site now - instead you get forced back to their gallery-style page full of 'related content', which only serves to slow the loading of the shit I actually want to see.

> Sure, video is expensive

Relatively. CDN costs have plummeted over the years. It now costs $5/TB to serve videos, and under $3/TB if you're in petabyte ranges (BunnyCDN, BelugaCDN).

Ooh thanks for the tips on these. I've not looked at CDNs in a while.

> I think it's pretty simple and I always wondered why they didn't do it sooner. Reddit is already one of the most popular sites on the Internet - but since it was just an aggregator it constantly took users off their site. Now they're owning more and more of the content and keeping users there longer. Sure, video is expensive, but now they have a much bigger revenue opportunity. They can't monetize videos they don't host.

They are going to start getting hit with more and more DMCAs, etc. The compliance cost for video and/or audio goes up alot in my experience. Also more likely to be sued (a la Youtube).

For the most part, still pictures, its rare to get any kind of DMCA notice and you basically never get sued.

I don't think people leave their site for videos, usually I just open in new window and return to reddit when i'm done

If, as you wrote, you "return to reddit" when you are done, doesn't that kind of imply that you left reddit to watch the video?

> I don't get what they're plan is.

"This launch is a giant step forward in our efforts to bring rich content to Reddit, following last year’s release of native image hosting and our introduction of native video ads earlier this year."

Which means having to watch a 30 second ad before a 15second video clip.

"Which means having to watch a 30 second ad before a 15second video clip."

Hopefully you'll be able to just use youtube-dl or a similar app to download the video and skip the ads, just as you can for videos that are on youtube.

Even simpler, Ad Block Plus or UBlock Origin block adverts on YouTube. I'm not sure which it is because I've got both, but I definitely notice the annoying difference when I watch YouTube on another browser!

They both do. I'm not sure why you would use them both, though.

uBlock Origin definitely does. I thought there might have been a downside to using multiple adblockers...is that not the case?

I've never noticed a problem using both.

Also another giant step away from Imgur, who has a very simple YouTube-to-hosted-GIF meme maker.

Looks like i'll have to remove reddit from whitelisted sites on my ad-blocker. Sigh.

Why? They're hosting content you want to see? Can't you just watch their ads?

Some people consider ads immoral and predatory. If we're lucky enough to know how insidious they are, and have the means to block them, we should.

Guess I just don't understand that idea of thinking ads are immoral but having no problem enjoying content without providing payment for it (in this case eyeballs).

How do these supremely moral people expect content to be paid for?

Some of us just genuinely hate autoplay ads.

Yeah I mean who likes them? But if I like the content on a site, I'll watch them. Who knows, maybe I will see something I want to buy.

reddit is the only site that i have white listed because the ads on it aren't obtrusive. If i have to watch a 30 second ad for a 15 second video, i personally find it annoying and obtrusive. I'll gladly donate to reddit via other means to show my support.

Reddit gold opts you out of all ads, not that there are any ads on videos now.

What moral objection are you planning to use to avoid paying for Reddit Gold?

Who said i'm avoiding it? When reddit starts to roll out video ads, i'll buy reddit gold and use ad-blocker at the same time.

I just start blacklisting sites with those tbh. Just refuse to use them altogether. No content is worth the annoyance.

> > especially those who capture videos on their phones

I guess this is a problem with the in-house Reddit app. There are many problems which can, and should be, solved on the frontend. This is one of them.

> I don't get what they're plan is.

Exactly, they could just add gfycat/imgur support to the app (which is what Sync already does).

> losing money

They will also have to deal with DCMA (historically, the content hosts have), which means hiring people to vet false claims. Not to mention that redditors are ferocious when it comes to false claims and 'censorship.' This is a PR nightmare waiting to happen.

> They will also have to deal with DCMA (historically, the content hosts have), which means hiring people to vet false claims.

No, it doesn't. You can just honor any facially-valid notice and give the user the opportunity for counter-notice, and (if you care about liability to users, which you probably don't need to) then also honor any facially-valid counter-notice.

The DMCA safe harbor process is designed specifically so that content hosts have no need to care about whether a claim is true or false if they follow it.

You also need to ban users with multiple infringements and if the problem gets large enough, implement an automated detection system. YouTube didn't build ContentID out of the kindness of their heart.

> YouTube didn't build ContentID out of the kindness of their heart.

It built it to settle a lawsuit that was on appeal that it kept winning (at summary judgement, twice) against Viacom, largely because YouTube’s long term goals were better served by friendly relations with big copyright holders.

> In addition, to be eligible for any of the limitations, a service provider must meet two overall conditions: (1) [...] and (2) it must accommodate and not interfere with “standard technical measures.” (Section 512(i)). “Standard technical measures” are defined as measures that copyright owners use to identify or protect copyrighted works, that have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair and voluntary multi-industry process, are available to anyone on reasonable nondiscriminatory terms, and do not impose substantial costs or burdens on service providers.

https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

That's not a requirement to implement their own detection measures, TS a requirement not to obstruct copyright owners detection measures.

The Reddit userbase would demand it, is my point.

Yeah a good thing for reddit that users get bombarded with heavy Youtube and Imgur ads?

If Youtube and especially small company Imgur can profit this way, so can reddit.

And seeing as reddit has so few avenues to monetize users, letting Google and Imgur mop up the vast majority of link ad revenue seems very silly.

>> "How does a company... plan to make more?"

By charging a fifteen dollar CPM for ads shown on their videos.

It seems inevitable that there will be pre-roll ads, just like YouTube.