YouTube’s anti-ad blocking test gets even pushier with a new timer
YouTube’s anti-ad blocking test gets even pushier with a new timer
You're viewing a single thread.
342 comments
-
The really annoying part is YouTube gets all their content for free, while every other subscription video service pays for content.
-
They do, but the costs to store all of that high resolution video is enormous. Especially since it must be replicated to local repository for quicker access as popularity raises and removed when popularity falls on videos. The amount of content stored and served is significantly more than Netflix houses. That being said, ads are getting way too intrusive.
-
other streaming services dont let pretty much anyone upload gigabytes of video
-
Me gesturing at gazillions of porn sites that lets anyone upload any videos...
If YouTube implodes, pornhub will immediately launch an sfw version to grab the fleeing content creators.
-
Honestly I'm surprised they haven't done so already, they already have the tech to do it, probably need to scale it a bit.
Now I wonder if there aren't SFW videos in pornhub from people that want to upload videos but don't want to use YouTube. Or NSFW video that aren't really porn, like a random guy reviewing videogames naked for some reason. I'm not checking either.
-
I remember people from certain subreddits used to upload full movies to pornhub and share them for shit and giggles.
-
-
-
-
Creators no longer get ad revenue? What did I miss?
-
I believe he is referring to the fact that YouTube don't have to pay upfront for new content, they even get new content without hunting for it, and many smaller channels don't have partnership and so on.
Sure they have a platform, backend and so on. But Netflix needs to have all that too plus buy things to show to their customers.
-
That's what I thought, and it's kind of a silly point to make. You're just moving around the order of the steps. They still pay for it.
-
I believe he is referring to the fact that YouTube don't have to pay upfront for new content, they even get new content without hunting for it, and many smaller channels don't have partnership and so on.
Well, sure, but on the other hand, those smaller creators couldn't attract any attention or grow their audience without a platform to do it on. And, like it or not, youtube has that and doesn't charge those new creators anything to use the platform (unlike platforms like Vimeo, as one example).
Most of those large profitable channels wouldn't have been able to grow totbhwir current size without a free to use platform to spread their content to a wider audience.
There's give and take on both sides.
;
Of course, the payment share on ads and memberships is fair and equitable is a separate discussion...
-
-
342 comments