YouTube (Un)Blocks Blender Videos
blender.org
blender.org
A litmus test for determining whether a company has sufficient "support" is to check whether the following conversation is possible:
"I really appreciate your service X!"
"Thanks, means a lot. We're glad you like it!"
If the response is "We'll pass that onto the team!" it's okay, but not great. If the response has the jist "This message is miscategorized", you're in trouble. If there's simply no channel to send that message, you're screwed.
For example, I once called them about getting rEFIt and dual boot working on a Mac Mini, and the support guy did his best to figure out how to help me, even though it is definitely not supported and it is a very unusual configuration.
Was I talking to an Apple developer? No, but I'm not asking them to implement a new feature on my behalf, so I don't expect to.
YMMV.
I work in a company that sells B2B software for developers, and as developers we do sometimes talk directly to our customers, it's a lot faster having a person on each side debugging the problem.
But our software does cost upwards of $5000 per year, so they certainly pay for that level of support.
I do understand why Apple bans people from helping outside of official support channels. Imagine how annoying it would be if you were in support and talking to a customer who is now telling you that an Apple developer somewhere on the internet suggested you try some solution that didn't work or even made things worse.
At my old company, they made devs do 2 hours of support a week, that was frontline support, so we got all the bullshit queries.
It definitely helped resolve some common issues. For instance, we got a lot of support queries about people forgetting their password. There was a reset password option, but it wasn't large on the screen, so customers missed it.
I made a fix, so that if they got their password wrong, there was a nice big message with the forgot password link. We didn't have a single forgotten password query after that. It was a 10 minute fix.
There were a lot of other support queries that had easy fixes that didn't make it back to the devs.
Yes, if you use one of the two "Technical Support Incidents" per year you get as part of the standard (paid) developer program:
https://developer.apple.com/support/technical/
There's also Radar (which despite its reputation as a black hole does reach engineers), and WWDC.
I emailed him directly and he very nicely replied, though there wasn't anything he could do.
This all worked outside the Apple support system. Ironically, Apple probably have the best consumer support system out of anyone, and they are still not brilliant.
"I'll take 5 2-packs please."
"Sure, we can just do two 5-packs."
"No, I'm trying to save three bucks here."
They provide one of the best support I've seen for G Suite. You can get somebody on the phone no matter the timezone and the issues I've had with G Suite thus far have all been fixed.
And Blender did mention that they had access to higher level support actually, due to their channel being popular. Support people however are often powerless and what happened to Blender seems to be human error.
People speak of Microsoft's support being good for example. Remember the Skype transition to Microsoft accounts? I lost half my address book in that transition, contacted their support and they kept insisting that it isn't true and that I might be having a second Skype account. After several attempts with different people, I couldn't get them to transfer me to somebody technical that can recognize this is a bug. I gave up eventually and lost Skype IDs of people I've know for a long time.
Microsoft's support is shit, it's as if it doesn't exist in some situations actually and yet people don't mention Microsoft as having poor support. Is that because you can get a dummy to read textbook replies back at you? I'll never know.
I don’t think it’s possible to label someone as support if they’re powerless.
AS for the parents, I also have absolutely horrible experiences with Microsoft support, in fact last time I contacted them with a problem they hung up when they couldn't solve it.
To give an example, also with G Suite, once upon a time when it was called Google Apps, I asked them to switch my primary domain to another domain — they couldn't because the feature wasn't implemented and they refused to manually change it, but they subscribed me to an early adopters program and several months later I got the feature available.
That is mostly not the case with Google as it usually ends up in a situation where I am meeting a group of their lawyers instead.
Try getting support for anything that's not G Suite or Project Fi (which have arguably good customer support). Sometimes the "support" is just a link to the forums.
I'm no expert, but maybe it's the free-to-use products that lack support.
Suppose there were a paid mail service, and another free one with a billion users, and the paid service's spam filtering relied on the free one for accuracy. (Spammers can't very well spam a hundred thousand people without hitting at least a few thousand of the billion.) Would you say that the users of the free one pay with data? They do, but to me, the phrase "paid with data" suggests other data than just the spam you get and whether you click "this is spam" on a particular message.
If something bad happens on their side and it does happens eventually, they must fix the problem by manually editing the system. If they don't allocate human resource for that task or their system is hard to edit by hand, they don't provide the support.
If 90% of you customers are phoning to complain the service is down and they can't reboot the modem because the lights are turned off because of the power cut, you can't have skilled support engineers dealing with them. Setting aside the money, the engineers would just go stir crazy and turn into BOFHs.
The trick is to either vet your customers, or enable a shibboleet protocol
How do you propose filtering out the tech savvy vs. unsavvy folks needing support? I think a big problem with "tiered support" (shudder) is that the support folks on the 1st level are often less tech savvy than the people who actually need something fixed... but they deal with so many customers who don't actually have an issue to report that it makes it worthwhile.
Oh, the restart fixed youtube.com for you? Great! Have a wonderful day.
I'm not at all surprised that Youtube support is so rubbish though. The interesting thing is, if they had better support they wouldn't be in such a disastrous position now.
Of course. With G Suite, you are the customer.
On YouTube, you are not the customer. You are the product, whether you're a viewer or a creator. Advertisers are the customer.
I think that Youtube is in a different situation in that their creators are mostly individuals who use Youtube because it affords them advantages that they can't get elsewhere. If that were to change, either with Youtube becoming less popular or another platform becoming good enough, Youtube would lose a lot of its video makers and that would lose them a lot of business. I don't think Youtube's problem is that they see creators as products so much as that in order to maintain their market position, they have to be all things to all people and they desperately want to automate their business. That means there's not going to be any policy that works for everyone that uses Youtube and no matter what they do, somebody is going to get screwed.
They refused to extend my trial at all while we were getting it sorted out.
I left Gsuite and immediately received much better support from Office 365. I left them for other reasons. I also get good support from Zoho and Fastmail.
Google has been the worst by far.
Why rank them in that order?
Is your point that the representative should feel like part of the team?
If Google wants to force monetization onto Blender then the response from a good support would be "we gonna force monetization onto Blender".
And your post wouldn't be about the bad support. It would be more like about the starving Google or the shortage of money/freedom on the Internet.
So there is no business point in the good support.
And there are plenty of companies with proper support who will let you enact changes without having to create a PR storm or know someone high up in the company. See: Every company who hasn't had a PR storm yet continues to operate just fine.
That’s pretty much how it works at most places, afaik.
Google chooses to be bad at this.
Every time Youtube demonetizes a creator they are also demonetizing themselves. The combined effect of all that could have held back profitability significantly, especially considering that they are shooting for comparatively low-margin advertising business model compared to other platforms.
youtube is an even bigger issue because video is so expensive to support, so on top of the possibility of not making any money, you also need to front huge costs in infrastructure.
Vimeo is most suitable competition IMO.
Someone at Google are trying hard to turn youtube into Google Video.
Alphabet can't drastically change YouTube, as its brand is so closely tied to Google in the minds of a lot of people. (I'm still surprised how many people don't realize YouTube is owned by Google/Alphabet).
But, yes. And there's already at least some version of Big Buck Bunny up there, so it's not like there isn't Blender content in the Archive.
The cost of storing/processing/serving videos is quite high.
On a side note, I have finally gotten youtube red in my country and I immediately signed on. Will it send money to the "demonetised" videos that can't have adds or are they screwed out of youtube red money as well?
With internet video now just a <video>-tag and a CDN away, I really don't understand why people have such a hard time doing this.
I can see why private individuals might prefer something free, but for organizations or other professional actors which are publishing high-quality video-productions, they already have a budget, and frankly the BW cost is probably going to be the smallest expense on their list.
And when they risk losing their platform and audience at a whim (as we've seen Google do repeatedly to certain types of organizations over at YouTube), I can't see why more people don't consider other options which leaves them in full control over their own content.
Also, because Google pays you to host your videos, if you are willing to allow advertising.
I say it’s a more than good enough delivery “platform” for this kind of stuff.
Blender have set one up: https://video.blender.org/
Spin up a peertube instance, apparently:)
YouTube is from an earlier era, yet still after the dotcom bust. It was still on the rebound of the era of everything is free, we'll just make money on ads (like NetZero and Juno).
That model was and still isn't sustainable, and their dominance gives them pretty unique control over media. Same with Facebook.
I agree entirely. So the solution is to break up the monopoly. We can start by breaking up google:
https://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2018/06/break-...
We also need to promote interchangeability and open standards. Not sure how to do this - wonder if legislation is required.