• Moonrise2473
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    so they prefer that users use adblockers?

      • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Which they’ve shown they aren’t willing to do…

        Personally, YT premium is my only subscription I have, and wouldn’t really have any others if money wasn’t this tight. But I was paying before this recent anti blocker war, I prefer YT Music just because of the way it handles a bunch of the music remixed by seperate and probably not “official” artists. And with how much youtube I watch on mobile instead of my PC, messing with blocking wasn’t very appealing to me, since the jump from YTmusic to full premium is less than almost any streaming sub.

        But I have always watched/backgroundnoised a lot of youtube, so its not that much of pain. Realistically, this was bound to happen eventually, hosting that much content hasn’t really gone down in costs as quickly as most tech overhead. But its a fairly complex line item, not just hardware & facilities, but all the law office hours related to copyright log is an ongoing and probably still growing cost for them and since they are not Disney thats a real cost I’d imagine.

        As a side note, it just reminds me how shockingly unaware I am of how much they must value our personal data, that it only just now became worthwile to fight blockers with this much effort and PR/image depreciation.

        • ladfrombrad 🇬🇧@lemdro.idM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          how much they must value our personal data, that it only just now became worthwile to fight blockers with this much effort and PR/image depreciation.

          You got it, on the nose.

          Shadow boxing is always good practice.

      • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah but on one hand the price they want I’m not willing to pay, but if I could get it for less then I’d consider it.

          • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            It’s only worth what people are willing to pay. Already have Spotify anyways and not a fan of googles app killing tactics, learned that the hard way a couple times.

              • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                Video content? YouTube’s made it all but impossible to compete with their free offerings, for the cost of server upkeep alone

                  • Pika@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    To add information on that the other person didn’t, YouTube was purchased by alphabet in 2006, it was purchased in a very unstable state, it was bleeding money, but they wanted it because they saw potential in the platform for Data Tracking and video analytics along with the fact that it had a very high traffic ratio.

                    When they purchased it one of the first things they started working on was trying to turn it to be green instead of red, but despite this they still didn’t start seeing any real decent change until about 2009, and it wasn’t until 2015 that the platform itself started running in the green.

                    All this happened with YouTube being one of the most popular video platform sites out there. YouTube doesn’t have to do anything to actively block competitors from doing it, with their established market dominance, search engine self promotion tendancies(there was an ongoing lawsuit in Australia regarding this) and the amount of sheer money they have, no company is going to try to compete, the closest arguably is likely twitch but they are pushing the reverse direction with streaming instead of video hosting