YouTube's next move might make it virtually impossible to block ads

boem@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 601 points –
androidpolice.com
411

You are viewing a single comment

Content creators get nothing from a subscription To YouTube premium.

This is not true. If you're a free user they're getting a share of the ad-revenue. If you're a premium user they're getting share of the membership fee. The more videos you watch from a creator the more they earn.

Source

Also. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to run a video hosting platform? Especially at the scale of YouTube. There's a good reason Lemmy doesn't have videos.

It is expensive, but it's hard to quantify that expense for a cloud provider like Google. They're liable to use their market prices for cloud services to justify the "cost" when they want to make it look more expensive than it is. They're already building a cdn for all their other services as well, so YouTube's cost is baked into that.

Reddit, by comparison actually pays for cloud hosting for all it's video services and so pays out the ass.

TIL I should be posting hundreds of AI-generated long form video essays to reddit.

I don’t care. I don’t wanna watch ads, ever. The point is, YouTube will never be able to stop ad blockers. They can try, and the only ones who get hurt on the content creators.

Edit: and whining, “boo-hoo for the trillion dollar megacorp!” Isn’t going to elicit any sympathies

There’s a good reason Lemmy doesn’t have videos.

peertube exists. it's activitypub. lemmy is the reddit-like interface to activitypub. but the fediverse definitely has video. it even has live streaming through OwnCast (though i think peertube has livestreaming scheduled to be implemented as well)

edit: hey i just found a movie station!

https://movies.ctbperth.net.au/

I'm not informed enough to know how peertube works but running it is not free either. Nor is running a lemmy instance. Lemm.ee for example has a limit even on the size of images you can upload despite the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude less bandwith and storage requiring than videos.

despite the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude less bandwith and storage requiring than videos.

In general, yes, when comparing images/video of the same resolution. But if I compare an 8k image to a low quality video with low FPS, I can easily get a few minutes worth of video compared to that one picture.

As you said, it definitely costs money to keep these services running. What's also important is how well they are able to compress the video/images into a smaller size without losing out on too much quality.

Additionally, with the way ML models have made their way into frame generation (such as DLSS) I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing a new compressed format that removes frames from a video (if they haven't started doing it already).

peertube uses webtorrents to share bandwidth among users: if you're watching a video, you share the data to other users at the same time.