this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
423 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

34996 readers
194 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 176 points 7 months ago (2 children)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/513049/alphabet-annual-global-income/

Let's pause a moment and just appreciate how much money Alphabet actually make net (after expenses). $73,795,000,000 last year - higher than the GDP of entire nations, in profit.

The "bad" year, 2022 that drove all this change, they only made $59,972,000,000 net. Oh how terrible (!)

5 years ago, they made $34,343,000,000 net, so they've more than doubled profits.

Take a moment to appreciate that, and really consider if they "need" the money.

[–] [email protected] 111 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Shareholders: you doubled your profit last year, so I expect you to do it again this year.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago

*we expect you to do better than that

There, fify

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's the whole company. How much did YouTube lose for them?

[–] [email protected] 58 points 7 months ago (7 children)

YouTube lost google -31.5 billion in 2023, approximately 10% of all of alphabet's revenue.

[–] [email protected] 63 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was genuinely confused by this statistic until I realised it was a double negative. YouTube losen't Google a lot of money.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago

Yeah, sorry, sometimes I can't help my need to play with language, when given the slightest chance.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 135 points 7 months ago (7 children)

It's funny that free third party apps literally have more features and are more user friendly than the official app with premium.

Why the fuck would I pay for less when I can get more for free?

[–] [email protected] 46 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Some years ago ago, I was a happy subscriber to Google Music. But, they added it to the graveyard, and instead grafted on some music playing functionality to YouTube and called it YouTube Music. So, I went back to Spotify.

Then I started paying for YouTube Premium Lite. It wasn't unreasonably expensive, although it was a bit annoying I couldn't just have "YouTube" in the household, like with Netflix. So if wife would cast a video to the TV, it would play with ads.

It was about a year ago, when Google starting cracking down on adblockers, that they also removed an option to pay for the service. I think YouTube Premium Lite wasn't a thing in the US (correct me if I'm wrong), but they removed YT Premium Lite, and the only option left was a twice as expensive YouTube Premium bundle that included YouTube Music.

Tldr: fucked up Google Music, then removed an option to pay for YouTube premium, leaving a fairly expensive alternative with the pile of shit they replaced Google music with. It'll be a rough time if they manage to force ads. I won't pay for it, out of principle.

Edit: I looked at the numbers again. I'd have to pay more for YouTube than for the highest Netflix tier. It's more than Prime and HBO combined. They also don't have to front large sums to fund risky projects. If they didn't include YouTube Music, I might have considered it. But with it, it just pisses me off, they can go get f.ed

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 118 points 7 months ago (48 children)

I'll give up on YouTube before I give up my ad blocks or 3rd party apps. Fuck off Google.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 7 months ago (4 children)

That's likely what they want. If you're not viewing their ads and your third-party app is even blocking all the tracking, then you are not providing any value to them to keep you as a 'customer'. All it does is reduce their hosting and serving costs when you're blocked or when you eventually stop using it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (47 replies)
[–] [email protected] 99 points 7 months ago (35 children)

It's funny how this comes after Chrome's switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can't block ads on the first-party site, they're going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

"security reasons" is the classic cop-out for making users lives more miserable.

Like what are you gonna do, argue that you don't care about security?

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] [email protected] 88 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Are they going to officially allow third party apps at all? The stock app is terrible, and not just because of excessive, unskippable advertising and bizarre restrictions around background play. When you search for anything, at least half of the results are completely unrelated to what you searched for in an attempt to increase user engagement metrics. It keeps trying to get you to watch shorts in its bad TikTok clone. Sometimes it recommends unrelated shorts with disturbing thumbnails in the middle of your search results. It keeps autodetecting that the video quality should be 360p on a connection easily capable of 4k, and resetting back to 360p at the start of every new video. The UI for live streams puts things on top of other things that are more important.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 7 months ago (4 children)

And all of those come down to money

Search shows you random videos because “the algorithm” is hoping to drive you through to videos that are the most monetized and the most likely to keep you on the platform based on their data

The shorts thing is because they can pack more ads into 15 second bits of content while using less bandwidth and they’re hoping to hijack your attention with an “endless stream” of short clips a la TikTok or instagram reels

The video bandwidth drops to low every time because they’re hoping people will still watch, see the ads, and not bump the quality up, saving Google on bandwidth costs

The live streams thing is just more advertising revenue again

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

As soon as I have to see shorts, YouTube is dead to me. I hate the format with a passion.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 82 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Please download and archive your favorite channels and videos!

Host them yourself to watch them locally.

Especially do this for educational material, share it wide and far!

We are entering a very dark age of techno-dystopia, we need to fight it with everything we have. Pirate, seed, screen-record, download, archive, share, never give up.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Quick shout out to yt-dlp. It comes everything you need to download, transcode, and even use Sponsorblock!

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 7 months ago

Not again ... Well, let's wait a week or so for the clients to fix that.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 7 months ago (10 children)

Third party apps: "OK. We'll show ads. Muted. Behind a black overlay. If we really can't find a workaround."

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 7 months ago (14 children)

They've been trying for a minute. Must be different now that they're saying it!

Checks notes

Nope, revanced still works.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

We are officially ON NOTICE

Soon be Blasted, Slammed, Potentially even Yeeted

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As soon as 3rd party clients don't work as they do anymore, I am stopping going to YouTube. Simple as, I know it doesn't matter as a singular thing, I am just one user. Was the same with reddit, now I am here but reddit is still going (how well we don't need to debate now).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I've mostly only noticed that the comments won't load, not a big loss imo

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Gotta love this shit. Conservatives/companies: "Let the market decide!" The market: "We are tired of you cramming ads down our throats and fundamentally do not want it and will actively fight you on it." Companies: "Waaaaaa, they are fighting us."

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Conservative companies promoting free market economy: Government, make it a crime to not use our products!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The problem with YouTube Premium is the pricing tiers are completely out of touch with what people are willing to pay and what services they're willing to pay for.

Let me compare to Discovery+. For $9 a month, loads of shows that ran on TV for decades can be streamed at 1080p (or whatever resolution they were available in), on up to four devices at the same time. They still have some original shows that they spend money to make. This service does not have ads.

Let's also compare to Nebula, which like Discovery+ also has original content funded by the platform. Every content creator there is also an invited owner of the platform, so their cost structure is a bit different, but they still have to sustain the costs of running a streaming platform while compensating the creators of said content for views. Nebula is a microscopic $5 a month per user with no ads.

YouTube is a platform with entirely user-generated content (costs YT nothing except bandwidth) that is already supported at the free tier with a gratuitous amount of ads. This service has been available completely free with ad support for nearly two decades. The lowest "premium" tier they offer is $14 a month for one person to stream ad-free, at a better 1080p bitrate, be able to download videos or watch them in the background in the official app, pay creators for every view, and have a music streaming app thrown in for good measure. The only other tier is all the same stuff in a $22 monthly family plan for six users, but they all have to be in the same "household" or you're technically breaking TOS, so in practice it's often more like $22 for three people, and heaven forbid any of you travel for work.

Two of the "premium" features should be free anyway. You can't watch a video without downloading it at least once, so the bandwidth cost is the same. If you download it and play it more than once, that actually saves YouTube bandwidth, and therefore cost. Any video that's played more than once is probably going to be played a lot more than once, so this would add up, especially if the app downloads the ad spots ahead of time. Background play doesn't cost them any bandwidth at all and is a trivial feature to implement, so it's put behind a paywall as an artificial restriction for no other reason than to annoy users for not paying. Both of these are anti-features; to charge for them is anti-consumer. They engender spite in users, making them less willing to pay for Premium and more determined to find alternatives.

Instead of trying to figure out what people are actually willing to pay for, which is the expected behavior of a market actor, Google continues to behave like a monopoly that can dictate terms to its users. This is why people refuse to pay for Premium. If they made the anti-features free, and introduced a Premium tier that is $7 a month to one user for nothing more than better bitrate streaming with no ads, people would sign up in droves. There could be a $9 tier for streaming boxes like Roku or Chromecast that offers Premium service for any account viewed from that one specific device, without having to sign up each individual account for premium, which satisfies another niche. The $14 tier could remain for those who also want music streaming (an extra $7 is still much cheaper than Spotify premium), and the $22 tier could still be a significant value proposition for actual families.

It's not that the price offered for the $14 premium plan isn't reasonable for what it offers - the issue is that what it offers doesn't match the actual needs of many people who use adblockers or third-party clients, on top of insulting users with anti-features. Until YouTube management can be made to understand this, they will continue to screech impotently about ad-blockers while driving users away and leaving potential revenue on the table.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Fuck them. I'd rather donate quadruple the money for premium to my favourite creators directly than give a single penny to this parasitic mega corporation.

The issue is not only the ads, it's the stupid shit it throws you to keep you hooked, it's the stupid shorts that literally no one asked for, it's every stupid little thing that fights for your attention. Basically the app doesn't work for you, it works against you. That's not the case with third party apps, they have you, the user, in mind, not their profits.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 7 months ago (13 children)

I've been using youtube on Firefox with ublock since the premium price raise. Even on android. The experience is not great, but that makes sure I don't have ads at all.

Also discovered unhooked addon yesterday. Is desktop only, but great for going into less youtube rabbit holes that waste my time.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 7 months ago (11 children)

Youtube isn't some one of a kind miracle. There's at least a dozen already-established streaming platforms that would take its place. There are thousands of websites that have no problems hosting gigs and gigs of porn, so it's not as difficult as people think.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, huge shout out to the wave of enshittification crashing through Google and reddit and forcing me off their platforms. Decade-long debilitating addiction solved.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (10 children)

Damn, I got my setup so perfect on the TV with SmartTube. But I will not be able to tolerate ads. Then I'd rather only watch on Firefox with uBlock on my laptop.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I'll just use Firefox mobile with uBlock Origin then, literally anything is better than ads

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago

Hey Google, FUCK YOU.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

Don't worry, third party clients will rectify the issue.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

I personally have no problem with paying for a service. However, if I buy premium to remove the ads, YT has no longer the need to collect my data. But it is Google and they won't stop collecting. That, plus the fact that Google basically has a monopoly with youtube are the reasons I don't buy premium.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Peertube is planning on releasing an official app this year. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›