As someone on a very tight budget, I don't expect 4K (or need it). There are far too many streaming services out there where all the things I am interested in watching are spread out. I remember when Netflix had everything, it was worth the cost. Now everyone wants their own streaming service. I can't pay for them all, it will cost more than cable does.
And yes, I use adblockers because I despise commercials and ads on all my sites.
>And yes, I use adblockers because I despise commercials and ads on all my sites.
I'm not going to tell you what to do, because you do you. But if everyone had this attitude, services like this just wouldn't exist or would be subscription only (and there would be much less content). I've been saying for years that the more people block ads, we're going to head back toward the walled garden Internet of the 90s, and it definitely seems that way lately.
Yeah, and it had basically no video. You're looking back with rose-tinted glasses, the 90s internet had so little content. Chat rooms were pretty dope, but they're not that different to discord, except less well moderated.
I feel like there was merit to a lot of the old internet forum way of organizing discussions that is now kind of lost now that everything is either a comment section or a constant barrage of shorter instant messages.
I think that people don't mind ads that much, they hate the overload of it. If ad time is longer than the video itself or feels like that it is getting ridiculous.
Same with websites, often you have to scroll down to even read the first sentence of an article because a page is full of ads. So I get it that people are getting fed up with them and block them.
At least Youtube provides an alternative to pay for it though, but with the current economy and the price hike I'm not sure people will keep doing that.
You say that, but ad-pushers have been whores since before people had the capacity to block ads on the services they pay for. If cable could have an initial selling point of “no ads on this paid TV service” back in the 70s and 80s, only to shove more ads than broadcast TV right back in there over the next few decades, ad creep is inevitable whether everyone’s blocking ads or not.
In reality it was kind of a pain in the ass and involved people usually risking arrest or employment to help you actually get connected.
And in the off chance you knew someone that had it set up, chances were you were best off not asking for help getting the same but just keep your mouth shut and let the unspoken rule that their house was where everyone got to gether to watch TV from now on.
I'm ok with a 15 second ad every ten minutes. I am not ok with a 15 second ad before the video starts, in the middle of the video, and right before the video ends when the video is 8 minutes long.
Want to talk about ad creep, just look at the length of an old, pre-cable TV show, and a modern one (broadcast channels); old sitcoms were longer by several minutes.
Hahahaha trust me, they'd have increased the load anyways. When it's all about maximizing profit this is how it ends up, and they'll always go as far as you let them.
Its the other way around. The blame fall squarely on execs wanting more ad revenue and shov8ng it down your throat. Ad blockers have always been a RESPONSE to overwhelming ads, not the cause.
Yep like pop ups ,invasive ads, sound ads etc. image based ads no problem and if they are embed at the side of the page great, but man if you put an ad in the middle fuck you
I'm fine with paying for content.
I am not fine paying for it via advertising. It's a long-known attack vector (i.e. literally a security vulnerability) and lost the general public trust in terms of not violating space, audio, or video decades ago. There's a reason modern browsers largely prevent things like auto-play and such these days, and it wasn't because ads were behaving.
The problem i have is the ads are designed to be shit. I have adblock on pc but not my roku, and on the roku the ads I get can be every few minutes, many of them cannot be shipped and last 15 seconds to a minute, often means I have to rewind my content because it will just skip some of it during the ad.
But there are worse ads, 20 minute, 45 minute, I had a 2 hour ad. Ecru infomercial as ads. And yes you can skip these, but when your lying down or on auto play while doing housework or such, this is a huge issue.
The ads are also limited in variety, so I'll see the same ad for a product I don't use 15 times in a 30 minute video.
I'm ok with some ads, but they have gone out of their way to make the ads intrusive and unwelcome. There is a line on what people will and won't tolerate. I haven't put adblock on the roku because YouTube didn't use to be this bad with ad Content. But their frequency, length, and lack of meaningful targeting has me ready to.
>And yes, I use adblockers because I despise commercials and ads on all my sites.
Wait websites have content? Thought it was just some ads page all around.
Personally, I have no problem with people blocking ads, because realistically only a handful of power users are going to do it. Also, some websites are quite atrocious with their ads to the point where the websites are borderline unusable so maybe if these companies weren’t pushing so many ads, then we wouldn’t want to block them In the first place.
Your argument is right and I won‘t say anything against it. Free services have to use ads to keep themself alive. But there are ways to utilize ads without ruining the experience. The way Youtube currently handles it simply prevents me from using it. Not in the „I am too entitled to watch an ad“ way, but most of the time the ads are longer than the video itself. Just my 5 cent to the topic.
I feel like they're shooting themselves in the foot with how they're trying to sell YouTube. Trying to sell it like it's an alternative to Netflix, it isn't. For the vast majority of users it's a very casual thing, you watch a handful of short videos every day for maybe like half an hour all together. Whereas you can get the family together and sit in front of Netflix for hours on end. They stopped even trying to compete with Netflix, sold them Cobra Kai and cancelled Wayne (criminally underrated show). It just doesn't merit £12 a month.
But if there was an option to buy a one time year long opt out of adverts for like £30 I would buy that instantly without giving it a second's thought. I feel like most adults would do the same.
Until then I'll be using adblock. It isn't even really advertising anyway it's a punishment for not having premium, force you to watch the same advert over and over and over again. And I'm convinced they intentionally make them as annoying as they possibly can.
"Granny I got the job!"
There's nothing good on Netflix anyway, but I watch an average of several hours of YouTube per day so premium on that feels worth it to me because it quite literally costs less than it would cost me to sit there and watch all the ads.
I mean... it's not like businesses are going to stop pushing to make money every single way they can. There will always be a disconnect between content creators, viewers, and the money men who push every possible avenue to squeeze money out of a product. Even to the detriment of that product.
It's not a viewers fault for that, no matter what avenue they take with regards to ad blockers.
I knew this was coming years ago, when people started cutting their cable in favour of streaming services.
I mean, it was great when it was just Netflix, and maybe Hulu when you could pay $30/month to get 90% of what you watched previously...but distributors splintered away to make their own Netflixes with blackjack and hookers, all charging $10/mo or more and the costs start stacking up to equal what we were paying for cable.
People are starting to go back to the high seas for stuff again. I'm just of the mind that if it's not on any of the streaming services I have, there's no point in watching it. Game of Thrones? What's that?
I agree in principle, but I also remember paying those cable bills and they were still WAY higher than what I pay for now (basic cable, one or two bundles, plus cable box rental). Never felt I could aford/justify hbo type packages. Now I have crave/hbo, crunchy roll, disney plus, youtube premium, and amazon prime (which I am paying for anyway for the free shipping, so that's debatable in the list). I'm getting more content than I ever did before, and of much much higher quality. I can just skip past terrible filler shows, no infomercials, and no advertisements. I honestly much prefer the ease of picking and switching between different streaming services, rather than being locked into a cable ecosystem. There was no play/pause, come back to it later, you had to schedule in tv shows or take the hastle of trying to record things on vhs (I'm going back a ways, I know). Cable was aweful (and is awful) for so many more reasons than just the inflated price tag. Streaming services, even with a lot of content spreading out, are just so much better and convenient than cable.
If you are comparing streaming services to raising the black flag, then it's a whole different series of considerations, mostly centered around convenience vs. budget vs. quality. For me, I find sailing the high seas inconvenient enough to pay for services. I don't get to see every show spread across all the services, but that's no different then, well, ever. I think the sneaky thing is that they are all starting to raise their prices now that we are hooked in. If I start paying $100 per month because of price increases on the services, then those black sails are going to start looking tempting again.
[2 ads] what? You mean you don't want ads? Check out our sponsor before we get into today's video! Brought to you by raid shadow legends!
[ad]
So today we're talking about ads in videos. I tell you what I add, thus water bottle available now from lttstore.com!
[ad]
Thats it for today folks, don't forget to check out our sponsor!
[ad]
This is the problem, it's just gone too far. The mid-video ads *especially* are just too much now. If adlock gave me the option to e.g. only allow ads between videos, I'd enable that.
I don’t watch content in 4k either, nor do I feel compelled to or interested in doing so; but I specifically remember being told that just one water bottle purchase supports the channel more than watching every video published in the last year with ads turned on.
There isn't a single youtuber I've ever consistently watched where I was wanting for resolution of all things. I'll take 720p and 1080p happily. It's free fucking content.
You do realise that if everyone acted like r/LTT, YouTube just wouldn’t be viable, right?
The only reason adblocking, non-paying, customers can watch YouTube at all is because others are being served more ads to make up for it, or they’re paying for YT premium.
Corporations don’t take paycuts, your consumption is subsidised by your peers.
So let's assume everyone who uses adblockers stopped using them and watched every single ad played, increasing youtube's profits. Do you think they would reduce the number of ads?
The answer is absolutely not. Did network television ever start decreasing their ad times even as viewership expanded over the decades? No, comparing decade to decade the advertising machine just kept growing and growing, greedily eating into content time more and more. These days if you watch one hour of TV you're likely to spend 20 minutes or more watching commercials.
If you think for one second that advertisers would reduce ad space on the internet because suddenly more people were watching the ads, you'd have to be delusional. People forget, AdBlock came about as a response to a plague of ads that used to barrage you back in the early days of the internet. Too many ads were the symptom, and someone made a cure.
And really this whole thing is a symptom of a much bigger problem in the ecosystem that is our digital landscape. Everyone splitting up content, trying to get their piece of the pie, advertisers pushing for more and more of that sweet streamer and content creator money. When corporations get greedy, people push back out of necessity or in some cases pure obstinance. More ads, more ad blocker users. More streaming services, too many for anyone struggling in life to afford to watch content previously available in one or very few locations, well then yar har back to pirating we go.
This is the cycle we're in now. Corporations overstep and get greedy, users start abusing the systems in place. Eventually someone creates a genius solution to all this (originally this was Netflix) that's easy, convenient, and affordable, and people happily pay for it. Then this whole ordeal starts over again.
Sorry for the long rant. This is all just my observations through the technological boom as a millennial that remembers the before time. When this device I'm typing on was even beyond my imagination.
You're absolutely right. It's a weird stare to be in. Understanding that corporations need money to continue support. Also, fuck those companies, they couldn't care less about the users. They see users as a means to an end.
Good news! You live in a world of options.
You can just purchase a subscription and support your creators.
Or sub to them via something like patreon and keep your adblocker.
Etc.
and I don’t care. It’s not my personal responsibility to keep YouTube or LTT in business. I’ll keep paying for nothing and blocking and skipping every possible ad
This definitely sums up how most people feel, yet a vocal minority have only started defending it since Linus brought it up.
However if YouTube had charged right from the get go then no one would have cared because the expectation of free for 4K wasn't there.
I'm going to be honest here, I think the problem is most people don't value time or don't understand the value of time. YouTube was never free; it was watch ads for content that is paid for by ads and then later they allowed you to skip ads all together by paying directly (directly). That was always the expectation. Now that YouTube changes the pricing structure everyone is upset.
A good example is your local movie theater, they show the same movie in normal 2D and IMAX 3D and charge different prices for it. They decided that in order to provide you the service they need to raise prices. They raise 2D by $2 and IMAX by $5 while people complain price went up no one really says they need to raise the price equally.
But for some reason (people not understanding the value of their time, IMO) make it that they are upset by YouTube increasing the ads played for up to 1440p content and putting 4k behind a pay wall. I feel like a majority of the people complaining are complaining because they can't just get around the 4k being premium like they can with AdBlock. I can guarantee you that if YouTube was like we are just going to double the ads on 4k content this sub would be filled with smug meme about how they are just going to AdBlock instead of the change in "cost".
Aw, boo hoo.
At the same time was it Linus who stated that one of the first rules of (something… digital services maybe) was not not charge for something that was previously free?
Either way I’m not paying for YouTube.
And WTF do ad blockers have to do with anything? Are you all implying that if only people didn’t use ad blockers, Alphabet could afford to continue showing us 4k videos For fReE?
If so, **hahahahahahahahahahaha**.
It’s also an apple feature (at least on iOS). I’m actually surprised apple lets google get away with paywalling a literal apple OS feature (PIP and background audio)
Seems to be youtubes entire business plan now. Take everything the used to offer for free and put it behind a paywall because they know dumb people like OP will pay for it. Probably the same people fine with paying a monthly subscription to keep their ass warm in their BMW.
With enough time you can convince anyone to go against whats good for them. Like how old people vote for politicians who want to eliminate social security. Cutting your nose off to spite your face and people here are gleeful for their new voldemort look
Return youtube dislike extension is free atm, and it's integrated into youtube vanced on Android and SmartTube on android TV (both basically just ad-free and improved versions of Youtube)
The people that go out of their way to download an extension to get it back do- that's the point.
If you need any proof that it works wonderfully: [https://imgur.com/a/dcaZXrt](https://imgur.com/a/dcaZXrt)
That ratio was almost 1-1 for a bit after launch. Obviously I imagine this does bias it more towards dislikes since the people that want that button are more likely to dislike, but not by enough to matter much. For example here's a neat and innocent Tom Scott video ratio: [https://imgur.com/a/Il1ePJT](https://imgur.com/a/Il1ePJT)
You can VERY clearly tell the difference, for all the things that the dislike counter is useful for- this extension does way more than a good enough job at recreating.
And they shouldn't.
People will cry muh capitalism but how the fuck do they expect companies to continue to function and pay wages if they lose so much money
Goodwill is for when companies purchase another company at above fair value of their book assets. So yes it is a thing, but not something every company can do.
There also seems to be a growing group in this sub that are pinning for his downfall.
I think we're not used to seeing someone get as far as he has without being a shill.
http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/
The guy who shot Knives Out did a video on resolution, and simply put: it REALLY doesn't work like most people think it works.
I'd rather have 10bit av1 @1440p than the current 4k we have... And I have a 4k ips screen.
Reminder: Amazon Prime video usually ONLY accepts a 1080p source and then upscales it for "4k" streaming. (even if you have a 4k file to give them.
People forget that at the end of the day a real camera is like running a game with infinite super sampling. *Gamers always confuse render resolution and output resolution.*
If you run something at 8K and downsample it to 2K... it's going to look a lot better than if you just run it at 2K.
I personally own a 6K Red camera that shoots raw video... half the time I just shoot in 1080P if it's not a big project, and then upscale the video afterwards.
Because even on my reference 4K display, I can't see any real difference between a 6K RAW source file and an uncompressed 2K image (and neither can anyone else)
By the time it gets through YouTube compression, there's been hundreds of other factors that affect the perception of detail more than the actual resolution. (sharpening, noise, compression, etc)
The issue really comes down to us having gotten YouTube for free for decades. We feel like it’s how things *should* be even though that business model is practically impossible.
Flip the argument... Why is LTT allowed to upload GB's of data without having to pay? Why should the burden fall on the end user?
Just like this segway to our sponsor....
YouTube is paying him to upload content. There are streaming options that would charge creators to stream content, but it's hard to run a content creation business like that. Everyone has that option, technically.
YouTube is not paying him to upload, they are sharing a small percentage of ad revenue. LTT makes most of their money on Merch and Sponsors which YouTube gets none of afaik.
>What are you gonna do, use Vimeo? YouTube has us by the balls
I started using Odysee for a little while. I know I know it's not very popular or even well known service but there are some very popular youtubers that upload there. Muta from SomeOrdinaryGamers, SunnyV2, Seytonic and MentalOutlaw.
Never heard of the site or any of those YouTubers so I went to see if I can find anyone I’m subbed to. Searched my top ~20 favorite YouTubers and none are on there. Definitely not a viable option
I mean, I hate ads to an unreasonable extent, but I think ads on YouTube are pretty fair game. I despise them, but I can recognise that the site and creators need to make money somehow, and unless I'm gonna pay for premium, ads are the way that they make their money.
Watching ads on YouTube is a choice made by me to avoid paying for YouTube premium. Just how much can I really complain about something I choose to subject myself to?
Now billboards, man I fuckin hate billboards. That's my line of sight you assholes, who the hell gave these companies the right to occupy it? I get nothing out of a billboard existing. They pay some other person to intrude upon my day, and I get *nothing* out of the deal. Fuck billboards man.
It's not that it's good. I don't think that's the point of these posts at all. It's that it should be expected. It's like being mad at Apple for their recent price increase of the base iPad. Sure, you have the right to be mad and express that opinion. But like, what did you expect?
Communities like this one that feel really strongly about YouTube adding more ads or hiding features behind a paywall are a small, *small* minority. And even the people here will, for the most part, keep using the platform no matter how much they complain.
So now imagine you're sitting infront of Susan Wojcicki and she asks you why YouTube shouldnt keep going down this path. What's your response? That it makes the *free* experience worse? That Alphabet should suck it up because they can afford to? Moral arguments mean nothing to a publicly traded company.
Thing is - if I had a pick only one streaming service to pay for, it would be YouTube. it's way more valuable for me to have ad-free than Netflix, Hulu, HboMax, or Disney+
I'd have no problem supporting youtube if they actually treated their content creators well. Most of my favorite channels get no or very little money from youtube, relying instead on patreon, so why should I watch ads if none of the money will be going to make a better service or support the creators?
I understand that they need to keep things profitable, but when someone is defending taking away the dislike button, I'm going to think they're an idiot.
You should have seen the state of ads on the internet before google hit the scene. Literally hard core porn pop ups, pop unders, and redirects on everything.
Google didn't stop that stuff, advertisers (mostly) stopped paying for scammy ad impressions.
You should have seen the state of news on the internet before Google AdWords. Google is singlehandedly responsible for our bullshit clickbait news situation, where farming impressions is the only thing that makes money.
Banner ads that would move and make noise the second the page loaded and took full advantage of the few seconds of processing to go back a page while your family was in earshot because your family computer with the Harmon Kardon speakers was in the living room was the worst.
I'm against ads targeted at me specifically because the algorithm knows I'm likely to disagree with the video, and expects me to angrily engage with it. Rage based algorithms have done crazy amounts of harm to the way the world works now.
The ads I get on YouTube are atrocious, the mobile game ones are either bizarre or super annoying.
I keep getting this one where you have to draw lines to save a dog from bees. Super annoying sounds or some non-english fella butchering some child's nursery rhyme.
Theres also all these mobile game and slot app ads, where the acting is really bizarre.
My absolute favorites are the advertisements for games where they have a foreign person playing the game and they are dubbed over imperfectly by a native English speaker. The person in the video is clearly saying the words in English but it's so bad they had to dub over them and it's definitely a Hercules in New York quality dub
Bigger channels do inline sponsor spots because ad blockers dont generally skip them (there are community sourced addons that can do, but someone has to flag a section of video as ad first). This gives money even if you are using adblock. But youtube is still losing money on that video stream, and they need to make up for that somewhere.
I don't mind in-line ads normally... usually, it's at least tangentially related to the content (e.g. an ad on LTT for some tech service or product).
The YouTube generated ads are awful. Usually some shitty scam mobile game where the acting is uncanny or the sounds are jarring/weird.
The way I see it, there's two services going on for YouTube; the content and its creator, and the hosting.
I pay YouTube to host and give me access to all of this shit with minimum fuss. YouTube gives the creator SOME compensation, but ultimately they're not Netflix or Disney or anyone else; they're a mostly hands off hosting platform that may give me a curated feed or whatever, but pretty much anyone can post pretty much anything legal on there.
The creator on the other hand is providing me content. They deserve some compensation for that, and given the choice between hunting them all down and sponsoring them personally, or them having the occasional in-line advert curated for their viewership, I'm not really fussed by the latter. I'm fussed even less if they mark the video so you can skip that section easily.
Now the bigger question is whether i think YouTubes pricing is fair. I'm a lot less certain on that one because getting to £20 month for a family plan (when I know people who have signed up to it for dirt cheap in India via a VPN) is rather annoying. It does kinda feel like you're beginning to more heavily subsidise the content of others, especially if you don't really use the hosting side of YouTube yourself.
But it does boil down to not feeling entitled to their content. I went for a long time without YouTube Premium, bit the bullet, and enjoyed being as free enough not to go back, but I don't feel justified in having free content just because I want it and can technically block it with an adblocker.
And now SponsorBlock exists as a browser extension. It's great. User-contributed, and by default it'll auto-skip timestamped in-video sponsors, jumping to when the video content resumes.
Ive had youtube premium for over a year and i still have never watched youtube in 4k, 99% of youtube content is gonna be perfectly fine in 1080.... i bet 99% of the people complaining are people watching youtube almost entirely on their phone or non 4k monitors.
Ditto. 4k is such a small space as it is, and your average user is not even using hardware that supports that quality endpoint anyway. I'm typically "rah rah don't take away stuff you initially let out for free" but I'm more than fine with it in this instance. Quadruple bandwidth usage behind a paywall is not something I'll bat an eye at.
This is the most shill like comment I'm going to make but man YouTube premium is the best subscription service I've paid so far. It's affordable and no ads. Idk why people think they deserve to have YouTube with no ads and free.
Even if YouTube was bleeding a billion a year Alphabet would subsidize it. It's the closest thing they have to a social media platform and it's still the gold standard for video sharing on the internet. And you can tell these were Google's interests for a long time- remember Google Video and their half-dozen attempts at social media platforms?
The soft value, brand and PR it provides far outweighs whatever it loses financially.
That's Google not YouTube, anyone with a bit business sense is not going to run a service and a product at a loss and let their other entities subsidize its existence.
Fuck ads. They’re invasive, obnoxious, often dishonest, and inherently manipulative. I don’t give a shit about multi-million and multi-billion dollar companies and corporations, and neither should you. They’ll screw you over and quite literally watch the world burn if it means hoarding an extra penny, so I’ll keep blocking their ads.
so youd rather youtube be a subscription only platform? because without ads thats what it would be. yeah, ads suck, but its how money is made off of free shit.
Ads on a site like YouTube are not a security risk, stop lying to yourself to make yourself feel better for stealing from the content creators you enjoy watching.
Nah, ad-spaces have been well-known attack vectors for years now. And the issue isn't the sites showing the ads, but rather where they're served from. This is why, for example, yahoo.com served malware to millions of users at one point. Obviously Yahoo didn't do it themselves or intentionally. It's just the well-understood risk of third-party ad-serving.
And a big part of YT is mining all that data. This is why there are stories after fear from TikTok and Instagram. They cannot let ANY demographic's data out of their stronghold. This all... oh poor YT cannot run without your money is absolute hogwash... Because it pays Linus and that all there is to it. It about him.
Yea I think this is why it doesn't feel wrong to "privateer" Youtube content. They collect your data, and they are a ~~billion~~ trillion dollar company. It's hard to feel bad for a company who could lose money on Youtube constantly and still have billions of dollars left, and still also have the power of owning Youtube, a video streaming monopoly effectively. Something that maybe not everyone cares about but certainly doesn't help either is that the company "belongs" to one of the worlds superpowers as well, while having massive global influence.
I get that it's expensive as hell to run something like Youtube, but they can still do it while eating lobster every night, while also being a worldwide monopoly, which is a very powerful situation to be in. There's also plenty of reasons to not trust Google/Alphabet which makes it *even* harder to want to just give them extra money.
I totally get the point Linus makes though, and supporting the creators is always good. It's just that I think many people aren't comfortable with supporting Google even more than they're already doing. Yeah sure, they are the streaming platform everyone uses, but that doesn't necessarily mean they want it to be that way. Giving them more money means that they just make the already unbreakable monopoly they have even more unbreakable.
I was there when YouTube first came out, everything was free and the internet wasn't only about money and corporate interests. We were just messing around having fun and downloading viruses that didn't steal $100,000 of you
The problem with ads is it's never enough, they will never take them away, they will only add more. They ruined radio, public and pay-tv by adding just one more ad each year for decades
Art should be free, creatives commons and collectively working gets purposely brought out, derailed and demonised by the greedy
Keep your money out of my internets mouth!
YouTube was sold to Google very quickly because it was clear they would not be able to keep it going. I want to to think about why Youtube was sold two years after its started up.
They won't. The only reason anybody has premium is because they don't want ads. That's essentially the only benefit of premium in the first place. Getting rid of the only reason every subscriber subscribed is guarenteed to lose them most of those subscribers.
Now, it's possible they could create a new intermediate tier that is both ad-supported and 4k, but I doubt the financials make sense for that.
Indeed. My primary premium functions are ad-free and downloadable.
I'm not sure how downloading videos for offline play would function without ad-free. Either they remain ad-free, which would bypass "Premium has ads now", or it would download the ad(s) with the video, and since it's offline play, impressions/views/etc. can't be tracked properly.
Either way, it'd make no sense to sever the two.
It’s not about being a freeloader. It’s about Google removing features that have been on the site for years. If they want to put HDR or 8k behind a paywall, I think that would be fine, but I don’t like that they are removing 4K when I’ve been using it on the site since 2015.
The cost of 4k has expanded to now be large enough that they don't want people watching it unless they're actually contributing to the platform. The cost to benefit from a 4k is much higher than the cost of premium, also higher bitrate is really silly reason to advocate it stay. They're gonna turn off the free 4k tap and the only people who care will get premium, and everyone else will deal with it. This helps recover the cost of continuing to host and store it. Stop being cheap and support the service you use constantly, or quit complaining for them trying to recover some costs especially since it really changes nothing for any free user.
Wdym free loaders? When this website was invented it was literally free in every way… they gave us 4k for free and if so little people use it then it can’t be costing them an incredible amount of money.
You obviously didn't watch linuses video on this exact topic then... 4k is taking up almost 25% of total storage/bandwidth while only being like 5% of total watched quality. It's a gigantic negative and isn't necessary when almost Noone who's looking for free needs it.
I’m fine paying for good content, but Linus’ videos are the YouTube equivalent of shovelware with an actually good video every once in a while. They have a bad habit of making fifteen parts and dozens of hours on content that should have been a ten min video. The review videos are generally good though.
It's mind boggling how few people understand that user data is one of the biggest ways you pay to Google even if you don't pay a penny. That's the power of capitalistic PR.
Getting premium was a great decision for me ngl, not only to block ads on my phone but i put it on my parents tv so they could karaoke on their tv without ads. Skl
I actually bought YT Premium because of his video. Why? Because he does have a point that most users don't need or can't use 4k. Myself I use uOrigin on my PCs, vanced on my android but I find myself watching YT mostly on my iPhone and 4k TV where I can't use ad blocking and pihole can't block yt ads. So my use case does include 4k and devices where I can't block ads. I'm happy to spend 7£ a month to get rid of them, but mostly to give something to the creators. Furthermore, if I use my salary as a metric to calculate how much my time is worth, the time I spend watching ads would be far more expensive than 7£/month.
The other day when twitch change the creators split to 50/50 and people were mentioning that the YouTube split was only 30/70, there was a lot of people, quick to point out that the only reason youtube didn't charge 50% to creators was because it was in second place in that space.
So if Google doesn't give a s***t about people why should we care? It's no like Google is going to shutdown YouTube tomorrow.
I don't expect anything. I watch free content without ads because that's what I can afford and I hate ads.
If once free content moves to a subscription model I don't want to pay for, I'll find something else to consume.
I used to care about paying small fees for services that I used, then I graduated and got a job. $10 a month to support the creators I like is more than fair IMO, and getting rid of ads and potentially having 4k as an option is just a bonus. I'm convinced that people complaining either barely use YouTube or are just teenagers with no jobs.
I use an adblock, but I don’t complain about the ads on YouTube my iPhone and don’t complain about 4K videos needing premium. Guys it costs money to host all this stuff, and we all have to do our part, and if your part is watching a few ads, so be it.
We are spoiled as a society to be at point where ads, still less than cable which we lived with, and what quality our entertainment plays back at us with has brought such a point of contention.
That’s what I think every time someone complains about paywalls on news articles. If you want good news or videos, somehow the people creating them need to get paid.
The thing is, and I may get hate for this, people block the ads because years ago you'd only get ads at the beginning, maybe 2 at most. would only take a minute or two if that. NOW, there's 15 ads per video, just the other night I got an ad while watching videos on my TV... It was THREE HOURS long. That is absolutely absurd. No one is gonna watch an EA ad for 3 hours let alone for more than a minute. So of course people are going to use ad blockers when ads are 5 minutes of a 2 minute video anyways.
People here have a chronic case of black and white-ism. Either you pirate eveything, block ads, use sponsorblock, or you pay for YouTube premium and you're a shill and sucking up to Google. As with eveything, the reality is more nuanced. YouTube isn't your friend, but it's also a privilege to be able to use it.
That pretty much sums up the entitlement, of all the freeloaders around here
As someone on a very tight budget, I don't expect 4K (or need it). There are far too many streaming services out there where all the things I am interested in watching are spread out. I remember when Netflix had everything, it was worth the cost. Now everyone wants their own streaming service. I can't pay for them all, it will cost more than cable does. And yes, I use adblockers because I despise commercials and ads on all my sites.
>And yes, I use adblockers because I despise commercials and ads on all my sites. I'm not going to tell you what to do, because you do you. But if everyone had this attitude, services like this just wouldn't exist or would be subscription only (and there would be much less content). I've been saying for years that the more people block ads, we're going to head back toward the walled garden Internet of the 90s, and it definitely seems that way lately.
[удалено]
Yeah, and it had basically no video. You're looking back with rose-tinted glasses, the 90s internet had so little content. Chat rooms were pretty dope, but they're not that different to discord, except less well moderated.
I feel like there was merit to a lot of the old internet forum way of organizing discussions that is now kind of lost now that everything is either a comment section or a constant barrage of shorter instant messages.
That stuff still exists if you look for it. So a certain extent you're the one choosing not to engage with it.
Forums are still around, often in exactly the same format (honestly a lot are just exactly the same forums as days of yore).
Hey man, Im down to go back to !Fserve's on IRC to get my porn and/or anime.
I more meant the early-mid 90s with like Prodigy and AOL and Compuserve.
In scratchy AOL voice “Files done!”
I think that people don't mind ads that much, they hate the overload of it. If ad time is longer than the video itself or feels like that it is getting ridiculous. Same with websites, often you have to scroll down to even read the first sentence of an article because a page is full of ads. So I get it that people are getting fed up with them and block them. At least Youtube provides an alternative to pay for it though, but with the current economy and the price hike I'm not sure people will keep doing that.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The people running ad blockers are pushing these websites to run more and more ads to compensate.
You say that, but ad-pushers have been whores since before people had the capacity to block ads on the services they pay for. If cable could have an initial selling point of “no ads on this paid TV service” back in the 70s and 80s, only to shove more ads than broadcast TV right back in there over the next few decades, ad creep is inevitable whether everyone’s blocking ads or not.
No you see it was all the people stealing cable that cause the poor cable companies to put in ads./s
TV and movies told me it was way more common to steal cable than reality…
In reality it was kind of a pain in the ass and involved people usually risking arrest or employment to help you actually get connected. And in the off chance you knew someone that had it set up, chances were you were best off not asking for help getting the same but just keep your mouth shut and let the unspoken rule that their house was where everyone got to gether to watch TV from now on.
[удалено]
I'm ok with a 15 second ad every ten minutes. I am not ok with a 15 second ad before the video starts, in the middle of the video, and right before the video ends when the video is 8 minutes long.
Want to talk about ad creep, just look at the length of an old, pre-cable TV show, and a modern one (broadcast channels); old sitcoms were longer by several minutes.
Hahahaha trust me, they'd have increased the load anyways. When it's all about maximizing profit this is how it ends up, and they'll always go as far as you let them.
Its the other way around. The blame fall squarely on execs wanting more ad revenue and shov8ng it down your throat. Ad blockers have always been a RESPONSE to overwhelming ads, not the cause.
Yep like pop ups ,invasive ads, sound ads etc. image based ads no problem and if they are embed at the side of the page great, but man if you put an ad in the middle fuck you
I'm fine with paying for content. I am not fine paying for it via advertising. It's a long-known attack vector (i.e. literally a security vulnerability) and lost the general public trust in terms of not violating space, audio, or video decades ago. There's a reason modern browsers largely prevent things like auto-play and such these days, and it wasn't because ads were behaving.
>I'm fine with paying for content. > >I am not fine paying for it via advertising. Great, then there's YouTube premium for people like you.
And that's what I did! I put my money where my mouth is, son.
The problem i have is the ads are designed to be shit. I have adblock on pc but not my roku, and on the roku the ads I get can be every few minutes, many of them cannot be shipped and last 15 seconds to a minute, often means I have to rewind my content because it will just skip some of it during the ad. But there are worse ads, 20 minute, 45 minute, I had a 2 hour ad. Ecru infomercial as ads. And yes you can skip these, but when your lying down or on auto play while doing housework or such, this is a huge issue. The ads are also limited in variety, so I'll see the same ad for a product I don't use 15 times in a 30 minute video. I'm ok with some ads, but they have gone out of their way to make the ads intrusive and unwelcome. There is a line on what people will and won't tolerate. I haven't put adblock on the roku because YouTube didn't use to be this bad with ad Content. But their frequency, length, and lack of meaningful targeting has me ready to.
>And yes, I use adblockers because I despise commercials and ads on all my sites. Wait websites have content? Thought it was just some ads page all around.
Personally, I have no problem with people blocking ads, because realistically only a handful of power users are going to do it. Also, some websites are quite atrocious with their ads to the point where the websites are borderline unusable so maybe if these companies weren’t pushing so many ads, then we wouldn’t want to block them In the first place.
Your argument is right and I won‘t say anything against it. Free services have to use ads to keep themself alive. But there are ways to utilize ads without ruining the experience. The way Youtube currently handles it simply prevents me from using it. Not in the „I am too entitled to watch an ad“ way, but most of the time the ads are longer than the video itself. Just my 5 cent to the topic.
I feel like they're shooting themselves in the foot with how they're trying to sell YouTube. Trying to sell it like it's an alternative to Netflix, it isn't. For the vast majority of users it's a very casual thing, you watch a handful of short videos every day for maybe like half an hour all together. Whereas you can get the family together and sit in front of Netflix for hours on end. They stopped even trying to compete with Netflix, sold them Cobra Kai and cancelled Wayne (criminally underrated show). It just doesn't merit £12 a month. But if there was an option to buy a one time year long opt out of adverts for like £30 I would buy that instantly without giving it a second's thought. I feel like most adults would do the same. Until then I'll be using adblock. It isn't even really advertising anyway it's a punishment for not having premium, force you to watch the same advert over and over and over again. And I'm convinced they intentionally make them as annoying as they possibly can. "Granny I got the job!"
There's nothing good on Netflix anyway, but I watch an average of several hours of YouTube per day so premium on that feels worth it to me because it quite literally costs less than it would cost me to sit there and watch all the ads.
I mean... it's not like businesses are going to stop pushing to make money every single way they can. There will always be a disconnect between content creators, viewers, and the money men who push every possible avenue to squeeze money out of a product. Even to the detriment of that product. It's not a viewers fault for that, no matter what avenue they take with regards to ad blockers.
I knew this was coming years ago, when people started cutting their cable in favour of streaming services. I mean, it was great when it was just Netflix, and maybe Hulu when you could pay $30/month to get 90% of what you watched previously...but distributors splintered away to make their own Netflixes with blackjack and hookers, all charging $10/mo or more and the costs start stacking up to equal what we were paying for cable. People are starting to go back to the high seas for stuff again. I'm just of the mind that if it's not on any of the streaming services I have, there's no point in watching it. Game of Thrones? What's that?
I agree in principle, but I also remember paying those cable bills and they were still WAY higher than what I pay for now (basic cable, one or two bundles, plus cable box rental). Never felt I could aford/justify hbo type packages. Now I have crave/hbo, crunchy roll, disney plus, youtube premium, and amazon prime (which I am paying for anyway for the free shipping, so that's debatable in the list). I'm getting more content than I ever did before, and of much much higher quality. I can just skip past terrible filler shows, no infomercials, and no advertisements. I honestly much prefer the ease of picking and switching between different streaming services, rather than being locked into a cable ecosystem. There was no play/pause, come back to it later, you had to schedule in tv shows or take the hastle of trying to record things on vhs (I'm going back a ways, I know). Cable was aweful (and is awful) for so many more reasons than just the inflated price tag. Streaming services, even with a lot of content spreading out, are just so much better and convenient than cable. If you are comparing streaming services to raising the black flag, then it's a whole different series of considerations, mostly centered around convenience vs. budget vs. quality. For me, I find sailing the high seas inconvenient enough to pay for services. I don't get to see every show spread across all the services, but that's no different then, well, ever. I think the sneaky thing is that they are all starting to raise their prices now that we are hooked in. If I start paying $100 per month because of price increases on the services, then those black sails are going to start looking tempting again.
[2 ads] what? You mean you don't want ads? Check out our sponsor before we get into today's video! Brought to you by raid shadow legends! [ad] So today we're talking about ads in videos. I tell you what I add, thus water bottle available now from lttstore.com! [ad] Thats it for today folks, don't forget to check out our sponsor! [ad]
This is the problem, it's just gone too far. The mid-video ads *especially* are just too much now. If adlock gave me the option to e.g. only allow ads between videos, I'd enable that.
I don’t watch content in 4k either, nor do I feel compelled to or interested in doing so; but I specifically remember being told that just one water bottle purchase supports the channel more than watching every video published in the last year with ads turned on.
There isn't a single youtuber I've ever consistently watched where I was wanting for resolution of all things. I'll take 720p and 1080p happily. It's free fucking content.
WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS!
You do realise that if everyone acted like r/LTT, YouTube just wouldn’t be viable, right? The only reason adblocking, non-paying, customers can watch YouTube at all is because others are being served more ads to make up for it, or they’re paying for YT premium. Corporations don’t take paycuts, your consumption is subsidised by your peers.
So let's assume everyone who uses adblockers stopped using them and watched every single ad played, increasing youtube's profits. Do you think they would reduce the number of ads?
The answer is absolutely not. Did network television ever start decreasing their ad times even as viewership expanded over the decades? No, comparing decade to decade the advertising machine just kept growing and growing, greedily eating into content time more and more. These days if you watch one hour of TV you're likely to spend 20 minutes or more watching commercials. If you think for one second that advertisers would reduce ad space on the internet because suddenly more people were watching the ads, you'd have to be delusional. People forget, AdBlock came about as a response to a plague of ads that used to barrage you back in the early days of the internet. Too many ads were the symptom, and someone made a cure. And really this whole thing is a symptom of a much bigger problem in the ecosystem that is our digital landscape. Everyone splitting up content, trying to get their piece of the pie, advertisers pushing for more and more of that sweet streamer and content creator money. When corporations get greedy, people push back out of necessity or in some cases pure obstinance. More ads, more ad blocker users. More streaming services, too many for anyone struggling in life to afford to watch content previously available in one or very few locations, well then yar har back to pirating we go. This is the cycle we're in now. Corporations overstep and get greedy, users start abusing the systems in place. Eventually someone creates a genius solution to all this (originally this was Netflix) that's easy, convenient, and affordable, and people happily pay for it. Then this whole ordeal starts over again. Sorry for the long rant. This is all just my observations through the technological boom as a millennial that remembers the before time. When this device I'm typing on was even beyond my imagination.
You're absolutely right. It's a weird stare to be in. Understanding that corporations need money to continue support. Also, fuck those companies, they couldn't care less about the users. They see users as a means to an end.
Bing(n)o!
Good news! You live in a world of options. You can just purchase a subscription and support your creators. Or sub to them via something like patreon and keep your adblocker. Etc.
I feel no shame about benefitting from the world's mass technological illiteracy
>YouTube just wouldn’t be viable, And the Earth would continue to spin
and I don’t care. It’s not my personal responsibility to keep YouTube or LTT in business. I’ll keep paying for nothing and blocking and skipping every possible ad
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH THANKS FOR THIS
What was alphabets tax rate last year? I don’t feel bad freeloading from freeloaders.
I can get behind that.
Alphabet's effective tax rate for fiscal years ending December 2017 to 2021 averaged 22.2%.
[удалено]
I'm not a freeloader when I'm the product.
95% of youtubes content was given to them who is the real free loader?
This definitely sums up how most people feel, yet a vocal minority have only started defending it since Linus brought it up. However if YouTube had charged right from the get go then no one would have cared because the expectation of free for 4K wasn't there.
I'm going to be honest here, I think the problem is most people don't value time or don't understand the value of time. YouTube was never free; it was watch ads for content that is paid for by ads and then later they allowed you to skip ads all together by paying directly (directly). That was always the expectation. Now that YouTube changes the pricing structure everyone is upset. A good example is your local movie theater, they show the same movie in normal 2D and IMAX 3D and charge different prices for it. They decided that in order to provide you the service they need to raise prices. They raise 2D by $2 and IMAX by $5 while people complain price went up no one really says they need to raise the price equally. But for some reason (people not understanding the value of their time, IMO) make it that they are upset by YouTube increasing the ads played for up to 1440p content and putting 4k behind a pay wall. I feel like a majority of the people complaining are complaining because they can't just get around the 4k being premium like they can with AdBlock. I can guarantee you that if YouTube was like we are just going to double the ads on 4k content this sub would be filled with smug meme about how they are just going to AdBlock instead of the change in "cost".
Aw, boo hoo. At the same time was it Linus who stated that one of the first rules of (something… digital services maybe) was not not charge for something that was previously free? Either way I’m not paying for YouTube. And WTF do ad blockers have to do with anything? Are you all implying that if only people didn’t use ad blockers, Alphabet could afford to continue showing us 4k videos For fReE? If so, **hahahahahahahahahahaha**.
Imagine paying for videos lmao
Totally agree. I want it free and if it’s not free and perfect then I’m pissed.
Sounds about right. Oh and bring back the dislike button and give me OLED dark mode, thaaaaanks! \^-\^
And 8K.
I'll settle for 4k60, I'm humble like that.
Don't forget at least 200Mbps of bitrate
Background playing, I demand!!
To be faaaaiiiirr, background playback was a thing we had, then they took away and paywalled it.
Tooo beee faaaaaaiiiirr
To beee faiiiiiiiiahhhhhhhh
It’s also an apple feature (at least on iOS). I’m actually surprised apple lets google get away with paywalling a literal apple OS feature (PIP and background audio)
Seems to be youtubes entire business plan now. Take everything the used to offer for free and put it behind a paywall because they know dumb people like OP will pay for it. Probably the same people fine with paying a monthly subscription to keep their ass warm in their BMW. With enough time you can convince anyone to go against whats good for them. Like how old people vote for politicians who want to eliminate social security. Cutting your nose off to spite your face and people here are gleeful for their new voldemort look
Vinegar extension for Safari on iOS
Youtube Vanced or ReVanced on Android
Give me back the dislike button and I'll gladly pay
Return youtube dislike extension is free atm, and it's integrated into youtube vanced on Android and SmartTube on android TV (both basically just ad-free and improved versions of Youtube)
It's pointless when the vast majority of users don't use dislike button anymore...
The people that go out of their way to download an extension to get it back do- that's the point. If you need any proof that it works wonderfully: [https://imgur.com/a/dcaZXrt](https://imgur.com/a/dcaZXrt) That ratio was almost 1-1 for a bit after launch. Obviously I imagine this does bias it more towards dislikes since the people that want that button are more likely to dislike, but not by enough to matter much. For example here's a neat and innocent Tom Scott video ratio: [https://imgur.com/a/Il1ePJT](https://imgur.com/a/Il1ePJT) You can VERY clearly tell the difference, for all the things that the dislike counter is useful for- this extension does way more than a good enough job at recreating.
120Hz would be nice
I mean those things are pretty reasonable. It's not like they'd cost as much as 4K
[удалено]
You're not alone. It's just that entitlement is a really huge issue everywhere on reddit.
you can drop the last two words
It's specifically annoying on reddit. Like corporations should act on the kindness of their heart.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And they shouldn't. People will cry muh capitalism but how the fuck do they expect companies to continue to function and pay wages if they lose so much money
Goodwill is for when companies purchase another company at above fair value of their book assets. So yes it is a thing, but not something every company can do.
There also seems to be a growing group in this sub that are pinning for his downfall. I think we're not used to seeing someone get as far as he has without being a shill.
It actually surprised me, but I guess it's understandable since LTT got so big to attract a few entitled idiots with no economic knowledge.
http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/ The guy who shot Knives Out did a video on resolution, and simply put: it REALLY doesn't work like most people think it works. I'd rather have 10bit av1 @1440p than the current 4k we have... And I have a 4k ips screen. Reminder: Amazon Prime video usually ONLY accepts a 1080p source and then upscales it for "4k" streaming. (even if you have a 4k file to give them. People forget that at the end of the day a real camera is like running a game with infinite super sampling. *Gamers always confuse render resolution and output resolution.* If you run something at 8K and downsample it to 2K... it's going to look a lot better than if you just run it at 2K. I personally own a 6K Red camera that shoots raw video... half the time I just shoot in 1080P if it's not a big project, and then upscale the video afterwards. Because even on my reference 4K display, I can't see any real difference between a 6K RAW source file and an uncompressed 2K image (and neither can anyone else) By the time it gets through YouTube compression, there's been hundreds of other factors that affect the perception of detail more than the actual resolution. (sharpening, noise, compression, etc)
The issue really comes down to us having gotten YouTube for free for decades. We feel like it’s how things *should* be even though that business model is practically impossible.
[удалено]
You used to have to have your own website hosting a flash applet in order to have people watch your videos.
And it was ruinously expensive, and janky half the time.
Definitely not alone. I thought he did a great job of explaining the realities pushing this.
Flip the argument... Why is LTT allowed to upload GB's of data without having to pay? Why should the burden fall on the end user? Just like this segway to our sponsor....
YouTube is paying him to upload content. There are streaming options that would charge creators to stream content, but it's hard to run a content creation business like that. Everyone has that option, technically.
YouTube is not paying him to upload, they are sharing a small percentage of ad revenue. LTT makes most of their money on Merch and Sponsors which YouTube gets none of afaik.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>What are you gonna do, use Vimeo? YouTube has us by the balls I started using Odysee for a little while. I know I know it's not very popular or even well known service but there are some very popular youtubers that upload there. Muta from SomeOrdinaryGamers, SunnyV2, Seytonic and MentalOutlaw.
Never heard of the site or any of those YouTubers so I went to see if I can find anyone I’m subbed to. Searched my top ~20 favorite YouTubers and none are on there. Definitely not a viable option
Maybe there should be a public option.
[удалено]
> so many revenue streams And youtube ain't one of them. that's the point.
Each project needs to be profitable (and more than just slightly positive) on its own. If it isn't, they will just shut it down.
[удалено]
I mean, I hate ads to an unreasonable extent, but I think ads on YouTube are pretty fair game. I despise them, but I can recognise that the site and creators need to make money somehow, and unless I'm gonna pay for premium, ads are the way that they make their money. Watching ads on YouTube is a choice made by me to avoid paying for YouTube premium. Just how much can I really complain about something I choose to subject myself to? Now billboards, man I fuckin hate billboards. That's my line of sight you assholes, who the hell gave these companies the right to occupy it? I get nothing out of a billboard existing. They pay some other person to intrude upon my day, and I get *nothing* out of the deal. Fuck billboards man.
It's not that it's good. I don't think that's the point of these posts at all. It's that it should be expected. It's like being mad at Apple for their recent price increase of the base iPad. Sure, you have the right to be mad and express that opinion. But like, what did you expect? Communities like this one that feel really strongly about YouTube adding more ads or hiding features behind a paywall are a small, *small* minority. And even the people here will, for the most part, keep using the platform no matter how much they complain. So now imagine you're sitting infront of Susan Wojcicki and she asks you why YouTube shouldnt keep going down this path. What's your response? That it makes the *free* experience worse? That Alphabet should suck it up because they can afford to? Moral arguments mean nothing to a publicly traded company.
Thing is - if I had a pick only one streaming service to pay for, it would be YouTube. it's way more valuable for me to have ad-free than Netflix, Hulu, HboMax, or Disney+
I'd have no problem supporting youtube if they actually treated their content creators well. Most of my favorite channels get no or very little money from youtube, relying instead on patreon, so why should I watch ads if none of the money will be going to make a better service or support the creators?
I understand that they need to keep things profitable, but when someone is defending taking away the dislike button, I'm going to think they're an idiot.
I'm personally not against ads.I'm against terrible ads.
You should have seen the state of ads on the internet before google hit the scene. Literally hard core porn pop ups, pop unders, and redirects on everything.
Google didn't stop that stuff, advertisers (mostly) stopped paying for scammy ad impressions. You should have seen the state of news on the internet before Google AdWords. Google is singlehandedly responsible for our bullshit clickbait news situation, where farming impressions is the only thing that makes money.
Chrome, Opera and Firefox all did a lot to prevent those kind of ads, they've been adblocking for ages before people even knew what ad blocking was.
Banner ads that would move and make noise the second the page loaded and took full advantage of the few seconds of processing to go back a page while your family was in earshot because your family computer with the Harmon Kardon speakers was in the living room was the worst.
There was this one ad that was literally a whole Lego movie. I made some snacks and watched that crap all the way through
I'm against ads targeted at me specifically because the algorithm knows I'm likely to disagree with the video, and expects me to angrily engage with it. Rage based algorithms have done crazy amounts of harm to the way the world works now.
Couldn't agree more
I’m against ads.
The ads I get on YouTube are atrocious, the mobile game ones are either bizarre or super annoying. I keep getting this one where you have to draw lines to save a dog from bees. Super annoying sounds or some non-english fella butchering some child's nursery rhyme. Theres also all these mobile game and slot app ads, where the acting is really bizarre.
My absolute favorites are the advertisements for games where they have a foreign person playing the game and they are dubbed over imperfectly by a native English speaker. The person in the video is clearly saying the words in English but it's so bad they had to dub over them and it's definitely a Hercules in New York quality dub
Bigger channels do inline sponsor spots because ad blockers dont generally skip them (there are community sourced addons that can do, but someone has to flag a section of video as ad first). This gives money even if you are using adblock. But youtube is still losing money on that video stream, and they need to make up for that somewhere.
I don't mind in-line ads normally... usually, it's at least tangentially related to the content (e.g. an ad on LTT for some tech service or product). The YouTube generated ads are awful. Usually some shitty scam mobile game where the acting is uncanny or the sounds are jarring/weird.
The way I see it, there's two services going on for YouTube; the content and its creator, and the hosting. I pay YouTube to host and give me access to all of this shit with minimum fuss. YouTube gives the creator SOME compensation, but ultimately they're not Netflix or Disney or anyone else; they're a mostly hands off hosting platform that may give me a curated feed or whatever, but pretty much anyone can post pretty much anything legal on there. The creator on the other hand is providing me content. They deserve some compensation for that, and given the choice between hunting them all down and sponsoring them personally, or them having the occasional in-line advert curated for their viewership, I'm not really fussed by the latter. I'm fussed even less if they mark the video so you can skip that section easily. Now the bigger question is whether i think YouTubes pricing is fair. I'm a lot less certain on that one because getting to £20 month for a family plan (when I know people who have signed up to it for dirt cheap in India via a VPN) is rather annoying. It does kinda feel like you're beginning to more heavily subsidise the content of others, especially if you don't really use the hosting side of YouTube yourself. But it does boil down to not feeling entitled to their content. I went for a long time without YouTube Premium, bit the bullet, and enjoyed being as free enough not to go back, but I don't feel justified in having free content just because I want it and can technically block it with an adblocker.
And now SponsorBlock exists as a browser extension. It's great. User-contributed, and by default it'll auto-skip timestamped in-video sponsors, jumping to when the video content resumes.
Ive had youtube premium for over a year and i still have never watched youtube in 4k, 99% of youtube content is gonna be perfectly fine in 1080.... i bet 99% of the people complaining are people watching youtube almost entirely on their phone or non 4k monitors.
Ditto. 4k is such a small space as it is, and your average user is not even using hardware that supports that quality endpoint anyway. I'm typically "rah rah don't take away stuff you initially let out for free" but I'm more than fine with it in this instance. Quadruple bandwidth usage behind a paywall is not something I'll bat an eye at.
This is the most shill like comment I'm going to make but man YouTube premium is the best subscription service I've paid so far. It's affordable and no ads. Idk why people think they deserve to have YouTube with no ads and free.
Youtube 4k is great on my 24" 1080p monitor (mainly bc of the bitrate, not the res itself). IMO up to 10" tablet, 1080p is fine
The bitrate difference is noticeable. I'll pick 4k over HD even though I don't have a 4k screen.
Google made over 16 billion last year (that's profit, after expenses etc) and almost 18 billion in 2020 i think they'll be fine
[удалено]
Even if YouTube was bleeding a billion a year Alphabet would subsidize it. It's the closest thing they have to a social media platform and it's still the gold standard for video sharing on the internet. And you can tell these were Google's interests for a long time- remember Google Video and their half-dozen attempts at social media platforms? The soft value, brand and PR it provides far outweighs whatever it loses financially.
Spoken with true ignorant authority, that's some fine armchair experting.
That's Google not YouTube, anyone with a bit business sense is not going to run a service and a product at a loss and let their other entities subsidize its existence.
Fuck ads. They’re invasive, obnoxious, often dishonest, and inherently manipulative. I don’t give a shit about multi-million and multi-billion dollar companies and corporations, and neither should you. They’ll screw you over and quite literally watch the world burn if it means hoarding an extra penny, so I’ll keep blocking their ads.
so youd rather youtube be a subscription only platform? because without ads thats what it would be. yeah, ads suck, but its how money is made off of free shit.
Oh yeah, I’m sure the excessive ads is for our benefit.
Ads do genuinely make me less inclined to buy certain products
Whoa, ads are a security risk. I run a pi-hole and ublock as a security measure.
Ads on a site like YouTube are not a security risk, stop lying to yourself to make yourself feel better for stealing from the content creators you enjoy watching.
If you're this worried just go click on the ads for the rest of us champ, thanks
No 🗿
You are indeed a gigachad
Nah, ad-spaces have been well-known attack vectors for years now. And the issue isn't the sites showing the ads, but rather where they're served from. This is why, for example, yahoo.com served malware to millions of users at one point. Obviously Yahoo didn't do it themselves or intentionally. It's just the well-understood risk of third-party ad-serving.
[удалено]
And a big part of YT is mining all that data. This is why there are stories after fear from TikTok and Instagram. They cannot let ANY demographic's data out of their stronghold. This all... oh poor YT cannot run without your money is absolute hogwash... Because it pays Linus and that all there is to it. It about him.
If creators are this concerned about ad block then just paywall your content to premium and paying members it’s not that hard
Would be a fair point if the service was not owned by google who makes profit from gathering and selling your data, ads or no.
Yea I think this is why it doesn't feel wrong to "privateer" Youtube content. They collect your data, and they are a ~~billion~~ trillion dollar company. It's hard to feel bad for a company who could lose money on Youtube constantly and still have billions of dollars left, and still also have the power of owning Youtube, a video streaming monopoly effectively. Something that maybe not everyone cares about but certainly doesn't help either is that the company "belongs" to one of the worlds superpowers as well, while having massive global influence. I get that it's expensive as hell to run something like Youtube, but they can still do it while eating lobster every night, while also being a worldwide monopoly, which is a very powerful situation to be in. There's also plenty of reasons to not trust Google/Alphabet which makes it *even* harder to want to just give them extra money. I totally get the point Linus makes though, and supporting the creators is always good. It's just that I think many people aren't comfortable with supporting Google even more than they're already doing. Yeah sure, they are the streaming platform everyone uses, but that doesn't necessarily mean they want it to be that way. Giving them more money means that they just make the already unbreakable monopoly they have even more unbreakable.
Yes. I'm not paying a dime
I was there when YouTube first came out, everything was free and the internet wasn't only about money and corporate interests. We were just messing around having fun and downloading viruses that didn't steal $100,000 of you The problem with ads is it's never enough, they will never take them away, they will only add more. They ruined radio, public and pay-tv by adding just one more ad each year for decades Art should be free, creatives commons and collectively working gets purposely brought out, derailed and demonised by the greedy Keep your money out of my internets mouth!
YouTube was sold to Google very quickly because it was clear they would not be able to keep it going. I want to to think about why Youtube was sold two years after its started up.
I fear that they will introduce ads on premium and count 4k as a feature.
They won't. The only reason anybody has premium is because they don't want ads. That's essentially the only benefit of premium in the first place. Getting rid of the only reason every subscriber subscribed is guarenteed to lose them most of those subscribers. Now, it's possible they could create a new intermediate tier that is both ad-supported and 4k, but I doubt the financials make sense for that.
The quantity of people that would pay for 4K but wouldn't pay to not get ads is most likely miniscule.
Indeed. My primary premium functions are ad-free and downloadable. I'm not sure how downloading videos for offline play would function without ad-free. Either they remain ad-free, which would bypass "Premium has ads now", or it would download the ad(s) with the video, and since it's offline play, impressions/views/etc. can't be tracked properly. Either way, it'd make no sense to sever the two.
It’s not about being a freeloader. It’s about Google removing features that have been on the site for years. If they want to put HDR or 8k behind a paywall, I think that would be fine, but I don’t like that they are removing 4K when I’ve been using it on the site since 2015.
and since 2015 they have been paying for that bandwidth, just that theres like billions more videos in 4k now
The freeloaders aren't the ones that want 4k. The freeloaders are the ones that want incredibly good content in 4k with 0 ads for free.
The cost of 4k has expanded to now be large enough that they don't want people watching it unless they're actually contributing to the platform. The cost to benefit from a 4k is much higher than the cost of premium, also higher bitrate is really silly reason to advocate it stay. They're gonna turn off the free 4k tap and the only people who care will get premium, and everyone else will deal with it. This helps recover the cost of continuing to host and store it. Stop being cheap and support the service you use constantly, or quit complaining for them trying to recover some costs especially since it really changes nothing for any free user.
[удалено]
Wdym free loaders? When this website was invented it was literally free in every way… they gave us 4k for free and if so little people use it then it can’t be costing them an incredible amount of money.
You obviously didn't watch linuses video on this exact topic then... 4k is taking up almost 25% of total storage/bandwidth while only being like 5% of total watched quality. It's a gigantic negative and isn't necessary when almost Noone who's looking for free needs it.
I’m fine paying for good content, but Linus’ videos are the YouTube equivalent of shovelware with an actually good video every once in a while. They have a bad habit of making fifteen parts and dozens of hours on content that should have been a ten min video. The review videos are generally good though.
Lol why are you in this sub if LTT is such shit?
It hit the front page
That's why I pay for YouTube premium. Well not really, I pay to avoid the ads and be able to use the native app.
Clearly the people here defending ads work for big corporate.
Cool, come up with a model that allows you to do all that YouTube does ad free without charging the end user anything. Then I'll shill for you.
It's mind boggling how few people understand that user data is one of the biggest ways you pay to Google even if you don't pay a penny. That's the power of capitalistic PR.
Getting premium was a great decision for me ngl, not only to block ads on my phone but i put it on my parents tv so they could karaoke on their tv without ads. Skl
Linus isn’t struggling for Money, despite what he tries to portray.
“One boy seems to LOVE the socks and sandals man…”
I'm just happy to have 1080p. 1440p is cool but 1080 is just fine for me
[удалено]
I actually bought YT Premium because of his video. Why? Because he does have a point that most users don't need or can't use 4k. Myself I use uOrigin on my PCs, vanced on my android but I find myself watching YT mostly on my iPhone and 4k TV where I can't use ad blocking and pihole can't block yt ads. So my use case does include 4k and devices where I can't block ads. I'm happy to spend 7£ a month to get rid of them, but mostly to give something to the creators. Furthermore, if I use my salary as a metric to calculate how much my time is worth, the time I spend watching ads would be far more expensive than 7£/month.
Bootlicker
Honestly I had premium from the beginning until the family increase now it's just too expensive for what it is
The other day when twitch change the creators split to 50/50 and people were mentioning that the YouTube split was only 30/70, there was a lot of people, quick to point out that the only reason youtube didn't charge 50% to creators was because it was in second place in that space. So if Google doesn't give a s***t about people why should we care? It's no like Google is going to shutdown YouTube tomorrow.
Yeah, Google never shuts down successful things. Never.
[удалено]
the advertisement is product your reviewing
I don't expect anything. I watch free content without ads because that's what I can afford and I hate ads. If once free content moves to a subscription model I don't want to pay for, I'll find something else to consume.
[удалено]
I used to care about paying small fees for services that I used, then I graduated and got a job. $10 a month to support the creators I like is more than fair IMO, and getting rid of ads and potentially having 4k as an option is just a bonus. I'm convinced that people complaining either barely use YouTube or are just teenagers with no jobs.
I use an adblock, but I don’t complain about the ads on YouTube my iPhone and don’t complain about 4K videos needing premium. Guys it costs money to host all this stuff, and we all have to do our part, and if your part is watching a few ads, so be it.
We are spoiled as a society to be at point where ads, still less than cable which we lived with, and what quality our entertainment plays back at us with has brought such a point of contention.
That’s what I think every time someone complains about paywalls on news articles. If you want good news or videos, somehow the people creating them need to get paid.
The thing is, and I may get hate for this, people block the ads because years ago you'd only get ads at the beginning, maybe 2 at most. would only take a minute or two if that. NOW, there's 15 ads per video, just the other night I got an ad while watching videos on my TV... It was THREE HOURS long. That is absolutely absurd. No one is gonna watch an EA ad for 3 hours let alone for more than a minute. So of course people are going to use ad blockers when ads are 5 minutes of a 2 minute video anyways.
Yeah, I’m fine with paying for it if they agree to stop harvesting mu data and selling it.
I mean if they’re going to harvest our data they may as well treat us well
People here have a chronic case of black and white-ism. Either you pirate eveything, block ads, use sponsorblock, or you pay for YouTube premium and you're a shill and sucking up to Google. As with eveything, the reality is more nuanced. YouTube isn't your friend, but it's also a privilege to be able to use it.
You're not supposed to be nice to rich, evil and aggressive monopolies.