I don’t remember the numbers well enough to quote it but it’s barely anything. I recommend to look it up.
And the biggest surprise for me was that older videos get even less.
The money isn't great by itself but it's still money coming in too.
Not a pointed question, I just find it genuinely interesting where people draw the line.
Ultimately in all scenarios you are consuming resources from a third party, and avoiding paying for them.
This isn’t the right analogy. It’s more like someone opens up a shop where you can walk to the counter and ask for some food, and they stick a sample of some product in the bag when they give you the food. It’s not immoral to throw away the sample if you don’t want it, just like it’s not immoral to not play back the ad you get served along side a video you request if you don’t want to watch it.
Remember the whole "news" part of HN works because people are allowed to link to "unpaywalled" version of paywalled content. It's what HN is about -- stealing premium content. If these kinds of links are banned HN will lose a lot of traffic.
Also, Google it's already mining my data thru cookies/Android and earning money because of it. Thus, it's an even match.
Google has every right to restrict who gets to access their services (although antitrust concerns do come up) and every user has the right to control the software on their devices.
This is different, you aren't copying youtube videos and sending them to a friend using your own resources, you are using their server capacity to watch it yourself.
So you are costing Youtube money just like stealing from a store costs the store money. So the old "copying is not theft" argument doesn't hold here. It does work for torrenting etc, but not when you stream directly from their servers.
With respect to server/network resources, like I said Google is free to restrict access as they see fit.
The post you responded to didn't say that those two were the same, it clearly shows those two as different levels of bad if you read the next line:
> "Not a pointed question, I just find it genuinely interesting where people draw the line."
So your point here is just you not understanding and reacting with a meme since his post sounded a bit similar to an argument you have seen before.
Not viewing ads is a lot more like not looking at billboards on the highway or not reading the inserts you get in your free local newspaper.
Pirating movies is a method of showing disdain for extractive and manipulative IP law that lines the pockets of nasty old rich fuds while not paying the actual artists that made a work. I would not pirate an indie film for instance.
Stealing from large supermarkets is basically just preventing them from throwing the unsold food away at the end of the profit cycle. Again the only person youre stealing from is the ruling class who profit off of hunger and poverty.
They send people videos for free. They do so hoping you'll watch the ads. At exactly no point does this ever turn into an obligation to "pay" by watching the ads. They only have themselves to blame if their business model isn't working out.
* 500 Subscriber
* 3 'valid' uploads in the past 90 days
and either of
* 3k public watch hours or 3m shorts views
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/more-ways-for-creators-...
That or go viral somehow and bootstrap yourself (which is likely why the shorts views are so high). Obvious not impossible as people still do it but the math seems suspect to me.
YouTube gets thousands of hours of video uploaded every second. I'm not sure what the ratio of monetized accounts to non-monetized accounts is, but if YouTube can run a channel "for free" for a year because they aren't monetizing it yet, it seems there's a threshold they are willing to accept to serve videos "nobody wants to see" until enough people do want to see it and they advertise on it.
So the high profile creators are costing YouTube money to serve their videos and YouTube wants help paying that cost. But they only extract it from channels they know are profitable because there are a lot of eyeballs on those videos.
Almost like they are promising X ad views to advertisers and want to keep that numbers game rolling. I feel like ad based spending is going to go through a correction in the next decade.
No, if you get 3k watch hours on a video you are good to go, you don't have to wait a year. I've seen plenty of channels get monetized within weeks since they already had an audience.
It’s especially funny to see this sentiment on hacker news. “Those stupid content creators, clearly if they want to make money, just don’t use YT!”. I’m curious, what’s the alternative? Cable? Good luck. Udemy? What if I’m trying to make entertainment videos? Oh, I guess I could just build my own low latency highly efficient video hosting site and get a paid subscriber base that manages to cover hosting costs and make a profit! Yea, because that’s completely realistic…
If you do want to make videos that reliably earn you money, charge money for them! Make it explicit. Don't rely on implied contracts that other people may or may not honor at their discretion.
There goes all the useful tutorials for graphics software.
And home maintenance.
https://advancetitan.com/news/2020/12/09/how-youtube-is-chan...
And there's no guarantee anything will actually come along to replace it if it goes away. Hosting video is very, very expensive.
The Cloudflare TOS does not allow you to serve video from a Cloudflare address unless you’re using a Cloudflare product that is meant for video. So no, you can't make a youtube clone and make Cloudflare pay that bill for you.
Cloudflare makes their money by making users overpay for other things than egress. Video hosting is one of the exceptions where they can't make up that on other costs which is why they have another service for it.
Cloudflare says it's fine to serve video from R2.