Frustrated YouTube viewers seek explanation for hour-long unskippable ads
androidauthority.com
androidauthority.com
But if they follow through and just cut us off at some point then fine. I ditched the habits of Facebook and Twitter, I'll learn to live without YouTube.
And before anyone argues to just pay up, I'm already subscribed to enough creators directly. I'm not giving Google one cent.
It would actually be a kind of reasonable argument, or at least more reasonable than the currently popular "Google is rich so they should provide services for absolutely free".
This is fine to think like this, there is no reason to care about the financials of billion dollars companies
People have argued this but Google has made it clear why they won’t charge - that is their moat. By pricing the service as free, they price out all competing services by making it so that all creators, new and old, will use YouTube by default. Especially with new creators, with no startup cost and a huge audience, there is no reason for to use any service that requires payment. This effectively tanks all competitors and is why the only surviving competing streaming services target niche audiences. For example, established creators who have the sway to bring an audience with them.
How about no.
Why would anyone that doesn't make their money by wasting everyone's time and working on ads or isn't a stock holder in Google waste their time with ads? Have you ever tracked your life wasted by ads?
They will never charge and are clearly afraid to actually block ad blockers, possibly because they know they can't. I know I would watch a black mute box before every video before ever seeing a YouTube ad and sponsor block makes the rest of YouTube tolerable.
I don't like watching Youtube. The quality is crap, search is horrible, you are tracked.
offering something for less than it costs to produce is illegal in some countries. and while being generous can be ok, doing so to keep out competitors is the reason why it is or should be illegal. it should at least be illegal for companies that have a monopolistic market share.
I think plenty of established YouTubers would like to switch to a platform that gives them more control (even if they pay hosting) if it didn't incur a hit to their viewership. New YouTubers use it because it's free and has a network effect. Old YouTubers use it because they're locked in.
If content creators pay Google to distribute, that wouldn't pay for the surveillance/sales infrastructure, and it would take away the advertising profit center.
There's no business reason for Google to change unless the creators also pay at least as much as the expected advertising profits, fully amortized.
If they do that, then it'll almost certainly be cheaper to host elsewhere.
Most recently, the ?si= tracker on URLs shared are a new low that lets YouTube map out how we interact with other people.
The most gullible decile of society has to spend their free time somewhere… and there will always be millions of scammers, scoundrels, lunatics, etc., looking for places to set up shop.
So it seems inevitable that the open part of the internet will eventually consist mostly of the worst parts of human society preying on the bottom decile.
And even the best parts of the open internet will get drowned out by 800 million voices…
[0] sure this still applies, but sponsors and Patreons exist at a far higher rate than in 2015 when I first thought this, and it's on Google/youtube to figure out their monetization policy, not me.
(and the challenge with sponsors/patreons of not having micro-transactions and having more friction from users is also still there)
Would you elaborate on what you mean by friction with micro transactions?
But also it's impossible to allocate $1 to some creator you rarely watch because there are no micro transactions that are use-based (unlike with ads)
> Thousands of cloned irises have been stolen from illegal AdViewCoin mining operation. Auth Syndicate refuses to intervene on behalf of the original iris owners, instead accusing them of biometric fraud for allowing the clones to be made in the first place.
Google is still fingerprinting me, of course, and applying their recommendation algorithm to what they show me on the default page, but at least they can't ban my Google account for violating their terms.
I will never stop using ad blockers. If I that means I'm blocked from accessing some web sites, then so be it.
I'm honestly shocked every time I'm exposed to ads these days. It's gotten dire.
- It suggests that what youtube cares about is creators and not their own profit margin, which is false
- It suggests that adblock users should be the ones to change their behavior, where Google could immediately simply pay the creators more for a much larger impact
- It ignores the plain facts of youtubes consistently increasing revenue.(1)
Companies should be held to a basic level of honest communication that this fails to meet.
(1) https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/you...
>It’s possible that if you are using an ad blocker, YouTube is able to detect it and present you with an absurdly long, unskippable ad. There’s also a possibility that the ad blocker itself is glitching out the ad and its duration. Some comments have mentioned that the ad blocker could have blocked the ‘Skip’ button from showing up and subsequently failed to block the long ad, worsening the ad situation.
Who would even produce a 1- or 10- or even 90-hours long ad? Like, what advertiser would put that into the exchange? What would be their expectations?
Seems more likely to me YouTube is playing tricks here and just playing regular ads on repeat. Or selecting random other regular videos and playing them as ads, or something.
In those cases, it would at least be a clear case of punishment against ad-blocking users and not a "malfunction".
(I assume that no one went through the trouble of actually leaving the video on for 90 hours. So unless someone captured the video file, we have no idea if the displayed duration is actually correct)
The pictures seem to indicate that and I really doubt somebody is uploading a 2h52m ad to youtube.
haha. We're well into the "where else you gonna go" phase of this one. People who are willing to pay for a Nebula subscription aren't YouTube's target audience.
Most of my experience with them is that if I ever fall asleep watching a YouTube video, I wake up halfway through an ad about how I can “improve my life with this one simple trick” or how “Jesus can help me if I donate now”
But they have gotten much more aggressive lately. I tried to watch a 30 minute podcast on YouTube from my phone, and gave up 15 minutes in after the fourth hour-long (skippable) ad. They don’t show the duration until you interact with the screen now, so if I’m doing something else and not able to touch my phone right away I get a good few minutes in before I think “is this ad going to end?”
SmartTube is amazing.