• theshonen8899@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m a software engineer at AWS and work on video content delivery for services like Netflix. The idea that one single ad could cover the cost of delivering a video that’s been replicated in multiple servers, multiple forgets, multiple countries throughout the world is pretty hilarious. No matter how much money you think YouTube is making I can almost guarantee it’s not enough. There is a reason there is no significant competition in this space, it makes no money.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not really a single ad though, right? It’s a single ad per view. I realize that each view costs money, but at some point you’re just paying for bandwidth, after paying the upfront replication costs right? Assuming replication is an upfront cost, I might be misunderstanding there. If that’s true though, then surely there’s a breakpoint where ads start making money. Though I suppose if that breakpoint is like a million views, your point basically still stands.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re forgetting amortization. You can’t copy a video file to a drive and expect it to last forever. It requires energy to run and the drivers break down over time. Google is one of the largest consumers of HDDs and SSDs in the world. Plus you need to pay engineers who maintain the whole thing, pay the finance team to make orders, etc. And then you have to have recycling and logistics. I bet they dispose of the whole truck loads of old drives every day, you can’t put that many in your recycling bin and call it a day.

    • joneskind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      What’s less sustainable is centralized web. You must know that since you work for Amazon, right?

      When PopcornTime was still a thing you could watch adfree any movie you’d like even in 4K because resources were shared through peer to peer.

      Now, YouTube gets up to 12$ RPM, content creators get maybe 40% of that. With 2 prerolls and 2 midrolls + banners they get plenty enough money to make things work. Google has the most aggressive VASTs of the market. They are everywhere, called multiple times per pages.

      Spare us your tears.

      Besides, no significant competition? Is that a joke?

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        no significant competition? Is that a joke?

        For the type of service they are (hosting random one-off videos and series that anyone can load and optionally kicking back a portion to the content creators) - who are they competing against? If you go on the street and ask random people to name 3 streaming services that do that, you’ll likely get YouTube, “ummm”, and “I dunno”

        • joneskind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          If you ask a 40+ year old maybe…

          Content creators are flying away to TikTok or Snapchat. Gamers are on Twitch and Discord etc.

          My nephew is 11 yo and has never watched content on YT.

          • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            None of those services offer the same kind of content though. Tiktok offers 30s - a couple of minutes videos (vines, essentially), streams are hours long and are fundamentally different because they’re interactive with chat. YouTube offers the 5min - 30min edited content, with exceptions here and there (1hr+ content).

            Your 11 year old nephew doesn’t watch YouTube because he’s 11 and has the attention span of a squirrel. He’s not watching a 30 minute video about the Canadian housing crisis.

      • theshonen8899@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you think it’s sustainable you can create a new service yourself, no one is stopping you. I’ve done cost estimations for projects with 1M+ customers and the margins are so tight we’ve killed at least a dozen services despite pouring months or years of effort into their designs and prototypes. It’s easy for you to complain about freebies from your couch but the reality is that if someone could make a better service than YouTube, they already would have. “Spare is your tears” lol.

        • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Question that pertains to general hosting at those scales. In your opinion what costs more, distributing a piece of content that will get 1M views, or 1000 pieces of content that will get 1000 each? I know the math wont add up, but I dont know where the cost bottleneck is. Is hosting something even though it isnt used or that viral spike in views that kills attempts to make a smaller service like this?

      • joneskind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Unfortunately, YouTube exists because content creators make money out of the ads.

        But free content video is possible with a peer to peer protocol. The content creator get the responsibility to keep the seed alive. The more popular, the more it gets shared, the more it’s available.

        But content creators don’t work for free, and public libraries don’t have the resources to store all the dumb content people deem necessary to make.

        Reminder: give money to Wikipedia. This thing is a miracle.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Genuine question.

      How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?

      I doubt they had been just sinking money for the kind of their hearts.

      I do not know how much it cost to run a service like YouTube. Or how much money they make by ads or other ways. But they have been running for long enough to be a successful business.

      And it’s just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.

      • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I know that for many years in the 2000s and early 2010s- what many consider to be the golden age of Youtube- they were losing money. That’s what I think a lot or people don’t get when they claim “enshittification”- the services they are complaining about are unsustainable in their current form. That’s what it takes to establish a digital product- grow your base first while bleeding money, then figure out a way to monetize it later. As capital tightens up, the clock is running out for brands like Netflix, Discord, Youtube etc to start making money. That’s the part that sucks as a consumer but idk what else YouTube can do if it wants to be profitable. They offer a premium version for people that don’t want to watch ads.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I feel like I would need to see their accounting books to fully believe that narrative.

          The lack of accounting transparency makes all a tale of “trust me I need this money to make this work”.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?

        Investor money, then Google money. Video streaming requires fuckloads of storage and is a HUGE bandwidth hog, especially if people want to watch stuff at 1080p or higher resolutions. Youtube is a money pit, but it’s a major and nearly untouchable internet power, especially given its size and reach.

        And it’s just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.

        The “easy money” from loans with very low interest rates has dried up, also Google being Google.

        • Cargon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There’s also the cost to transcode the video and audio streams into different formats so they don’t have to do it on demand whenever someone watches a video. That’s a lot of compute cost plus they have to store all of those additional transcodes which is more storage cost.

    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Given the tech turnover rate at google (the rate at which they kill products) the answer is most probably yes.

    • GrymEdm@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I actually had trouble finding that out (although I only looked for like, 15 minutes). It’s apparently difficult to determine according to some tech websites. I do have this chart that says since 2017 YouTube ad revenue has been 7-11% of Google’s global revenue but I don’t know if that = profit. Decided to meme anyways because I have ads blocked on PC but still see them on my phone.

      • splonglo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Youtube has always claimed that it doesn’t turn a profit but I don’t believe them. My reasoning is that if the server costs are more than the revenue today, then they’re going to be worse tomorrow. A gorillian gigabytes of data are uploaded to that thing every nanosecond. A company can’t get exponentially less profitable every second and still survive. And what else is there to prop it up? Google ad results? No way is Youtube not profitable. They’re saying that to avoid tax.

      • TxzK@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        “I have ads blocked on PC but still see them on my phone.”

        If you’re on Android, ReVanced. And if you’re on iOS, well get fucked or something, idk

          • Jay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Seconded on this one. I use Yattee with Piped as my frontend, with an account as well, and it’s been pretty solid so far.

          • slaacaa@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I use adguard on ios, also a vpn btw, and blocks all ads in browser and blocks ads in yt videos in their app. Used yattee for a bit, but tbh I didn’t like the UX, then it stopped working so I switched

        • Twitches@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You just got me free music, I couldn’t afford it anymore so I have to drop it. Thank you

          • danafest@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah I completely gave up on the app. Firefox with ublock is a blessing, internet in general is basically unusable on mobile without it.

      • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Hosting a streaming service is incredibly expensive. Especially at the scale of YouTube. I can imagine YouTube is costing far more for Google than Search itself.

        My guess is that YouTube has never really been profitable, which is why they’re pushing users to buy Premium.

  • tjhart85@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Same with Google’s ads in general. For a long time they were whitelisted by default on just about every adblock list out there because they were so unobtrusive it didn’t make sense to bother blocking them, especially when you compared them to the other ads that were common at the time. They were also generally relevant ads, so people actually did click on them and use them since it actually related to the thing they were searching for.

    They’re obviously more profitable now, but you have to wonder by how much and if they’d be a more trusted company today (and what’s that worth monetarily) if they hadn’t gone down this race to the bottom.

    • Twitches@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Instead I’m putting great energy to get away from Google, along with a lot of other people

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Most people don’t even know what a search engine is by that term. They just know they type things into search boxes and click things that come up. Greater majority of phone users don’t even use the browser, it’s just endless apps

        • pelerinli@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sometimes few people raise much voices. Those who bother and search for new engine are early adapters of technology, spends money on new gadgets and such. Those are who ads are after, not my grandmother.

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I would think they’re infinitely more likely to click an add.

            Shit I hate ads that much, if I see one for a product I might actually want I’ll still search it manually. It’s ingrained in me to avoid ads on the internet and to shut them out as much as possible irl where imo they’re even more an eyesore.

      • Gigasser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        To do that effectively, you’d have to make a popular movement for popular big name YouTubers to move away from YouTube and to some other site. Very hard.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re right, and now I’m dreading having to change my email address again after nearly 20 years. This one lasted a lot longer than the Hotmail account.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I tried Stadia. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I played Cyberpunk mainly and didn’t have 90% of the problems that other players had. It was very enjoyable.

      I likely wouldn’t sign up for another similar service simply because now I have a library on my Steam Deck (purchased with the Stadia refund) and that’s how I’m used to playing at this point. But it sure was a nice service while it lasted. I thought they were selling it to someone but I guess it didn’t end up happening.

    • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My concern is that this race to the bottom is so that they can intentionally become unsustainable due to ad blockers. From there, they may be able to get Congress to ban ad blocking altogether.

      • tjhart85@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I, personally, don’t see that happening, but I can easily imagine them making it a TOS violation to use adblock and then killing your account if you continue to do so :-/

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well, I would just keep watching without signing in, then. Losing out on recommendations would be mildly annoying, but I could still access my subscription feed by being signed in on one window and copying video links to another one where I’m not.

          • tjhart85@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Losing access to personalized YT would suck, but losing decades of emails would suck even more (when I initially got GMail, I imported all my old emails in … I guess I should probably look at making a backup periodically, like I used to). I share your sentiment that I fear what these companies are going to do next in the pursuit of more money they can burn and/or give to shareholders as they continue to tank their reputations.

  • TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Adblock is a godsend.

    Although I actually use Invidious for most videos these days. The only things Youtube has going for it are a decent autoplay function and a professional maintenance team. Invidious has things like ‘not aggressively selling my preferences to every algorithm under the fucking sun’ and ‘a functioning search bar’ and ‘not actively fighting against adblockers’

  • Senokir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    As someone that has used ad blockers for just about as long as I have been able to, I would like to think that this is true. However, I’m not entirely sure that it is. I’ve heard that a surprising percentage of people just don’t even know that ad blockers exist. If that’s the case then they may be very well aware of what is happening. (Using made up numbers for the sake of argument since I don’t have real numbers) Like if only 5% of users use ad blockers and doubling the number of ads they show only brings that to 10% then it is certainly worth it financially. I doubt that if you were to graph that curve it would be linear - there is certainly a point where you inundate users with so many ads that even non-technical people will start learning about ad blockers. Regardless of what the real numbers are, I would be very surprised if they are making decisions this big without at least being aware of what those numbers might be. And if they can make a small amount of money indefinitely but they have evidence to suggest that they can make even more money also indefinitely then the financial motivation is obvious. Not all infinities are the same size.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s definitely a good point. I looked it up and found a few places saying it was about 38% of users using adblock on the internet in general: https://techjury.net/blog/ad-blocker-usage-stats/

      Although apparently the most adblockers are in Indonesia with over 50%.

      So that would suggest that if there is a tipping point where increasing ads backfires, we’re not actually that far away from it, and in some places it may have already happened.

      Although the analysis that “if you add 10% to the price and lose 5% of customers then it’s worth it” is definitely true. This is why there’s a bottom to every market where for instance some people can’t afford even the basic necessities and become unhoused.

  • ninpnin@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t really see too many ads as I use Adblock, but on mobile they seem to creep in more and more ads every year.

    • burrito82@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I suggest switching mobile browsers: Vivaldi has an integrated adblocker, Firefox can block ads via extension.

      Just in case someone doesn’t know.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Capitalists don’t care about making quality products/services.

    They care about squeezing more profit out of you as time goes on.

    • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Bad capitalists, yes. The trend of “maximize profit this quarter at the expense of everything else” is a recent (meaning a few decades old) idea.

      Once upon a time the boards of publicly traded companies could think long term and sacrifice short term gains without getting fired by shareholders. When a large firm prioritizes long term success efficiency still matters but so do things like building reputation through quality and retaining talent - the things sorely missing from publicly traded firms today.

  • Fleppensteyn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I accidentally watched a YouTube video on a browser without blocking. It started with an ad. I thought I’d just endure it this time. Then another ad. OK, just this time then. Suddenly, another ad in the middle of the video. I gave up. Who’d have the patience to sit through this?

    Then there’s Google’s habit of completely ignoring the browser’s language settings so I have to sit though ads I don’t even understand.

    • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      What I think is so unfair is that if I actually sit through one ad I don’t get rewarded and fast forwarded to the video, no. I’ll get a second ad that, if I am lucky, I can skip after 5 additional seconds. Or it’s an unskippable one. That’s not fair. I could have skipped the first one but I gave you that, I gave you that time of my life, now give me something back!

    • spikederailed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Then there’s Google’s habit of completely ignoring the browser’s language settings so I have to sit though ads I don’t even understand

      I used to occasionally watch YouTube on my lunch break when I would go into the office. I loved getting ads in Spanish, the office was in Greenville,SC not a large Spanish native population. I have premium on my account but don’t like signing in personal account on work machines.

    • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That is actually ideal

      I had to tailor my do not recommend and not interested in this subject clicks until I was left with the one advertiser that I’m actually interested in, and that’s basically low voltage communication mux devices…

      • Belastend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That feature still works for you? I used to be able to skip ads on the ad by blocking them. Now the ad just finishes playing AND pops up again during the next ad break.

  • LostWon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I was already blocking ads since long ago, so what really bugs me now is the heavily degraded and incredibly off-putting search results these days. (Fixed that godawful UI change right away too, and I’m just not over having to use an outside search engine for accurate results.)

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Just started my Kagi trial, and it has been such a breath of fresh air. Will almost certainly subscribe as soon as the trial is up. Remember, if the service is free, you’re the product.

  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That, and the absolute curbstomping of creativity through their copyright enforcement methods has gutted the core of a once great service. We are simply watching this thing shamble on to find a place to die: like a heart-shot elk bounding off into the bushes

  • jaschen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    My father in law uses the built in YouTube app on the TV. There were 3 ads that played. The first one was 15 minutes. The second one was also around 15 minutes. The third one was an hour. One fucking hour for a 5 minutes video.

    • Vincent Adultman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It always makes me mad when somebody put a playlist on YouTube and out of nowhere a bad song starts playing because it’s an ad.

  • eezeebee@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I was fine with giving them 5 seconds of attention in exchange for a video. Then they added more and more, and moved the skip button SOMETIMES. It’s straight up disrespectful.

    • ShadowCatEXE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I also HATE that if you miss the skip button on the first of multiple ads, they disable the skip button for another number of seconds.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Youtube Ads used to be for pizza restaurants and lawnmowers.

    Now they want me to join a fucking cult that worships alphabeta-blocking milkshakes.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I was getting ads for a very blatant scam. They used extremely well known buzzwords for it too, it’s actually embarrassing that it could have passed even automated screening.

    • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Good point. The ad quality has dropped by so much, hard to imagine ads this bad are possible. Really shitty mobile games are a huge part of that advertisement. A lot of stuff that just seems scam my too.

      • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I constantly see an ad by zeiss (which is a german company but they’re in california) and I don’t even know what they produce but I swear to God I’ll never get a Zeiss product. An acquaintance worked with them for a while and I have trouble taking him seriously now. (They’re pretty american in that way but they’re also very german)

        I fucking hate zeiss after this ad.

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I watch one set of ads. As soon as the second ad starts I download the video and fuck youtube.

  • copd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Objectively wrong.

    YouTube could not be profitable showing one quick ad per video, especially if it’s longer content.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Im of the firm belief that youtube should make creators pay for storage of their videos.

      Free teir for short videos, no monetization, YT places ads. Paid teir for longer form videos and monetization. This would ensure that long form videos should ideally be profitable for creators, or companies uploading their training videos etc pay a nominal fee for their storage.

      This is the fairest way to keep youtube in the green.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        this process will cause most smaller creators to just leave the platform, it’s already super difficult to to get established, this would essentially force them to operate at a loss until they can get a foothold which concidering a lot of the time it can take months to years to get established? I can’t see that system being sustainable either.

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I know this is a controversial opinion, but I dont think youtube should be a place where small creators should expect to make money from direct monetization. That model is what brought youtube to the state its in. Selling patron, merch, or driving traffic to their own website for services, yes. Direct monetization of ads on youtube, no.

      • copd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yeah it’s very clear to me the top creators make far too much money and I agree that business model bears fruit.

        However, the cost of YouTube isn’t the storage, it’s serving views of the videos. That payment scheme you’ve suggested doesn’t scale well with number of views of single videos, that’s why they chose to increase income per view and not per video.