General > General Technical Chat

YouTube runs experiment addressing users with ad blocker

<< < (35/75) > >>

Bud:
I think MK14 has a point though. Youtube could  benefit from diversification of service options and partnering with other networks, say offer an option with a voucher for $X discount from Amazon purchases. Would not you pay Youtube like $5 a month for free Digikey shipping on your 3 orders per month? Heck, I would be first in the line to sign up.

ataradov:
How would that free shipping be financed? You are trying to come up with some sketchy schemes instead of clear direct payment for services.

How would it make sense for them to take my $5 and then somehow provide free shipping that normally costs $8?

Bud:
Obviously that was a conceptual idea, but human brain is wired to use offered discounts. Therefore Youtube vouchers certainly can lead to increased purchases on the partners' network. Think holistically, not from your "ataradov is not planning Digikey orders this month" specific perspective.

ve7xen:

--- Quote from: MK14 on October 17, 2023, 09:33:26 pm ---As I (and some others), have previously said.  They seem to be pricing it, significantly too high.  Also, I'd prefer (and perhaps they would get better results), if people got more perceived value from such subscriptions.

--- End quote ---

It may very well be the case that there's a value disconnect between what Google needs to get to make the ad-free service viable, and what many users are willing to pay to not see ads. Whether that means they don't use YouTube, pay and grumble about the price, or just put up with the ads is up to them I guess, but apparently Google is interested in forcing them to make that decision.

I suspect that YouTube is a lot more expensive to operate per user than your posts suggest, and that even at the obnoxious level of ads, they aren't making a lot of money. Also do keep in mind that the content creators do have some control over the type and volume of ads presented on their content. This is not solely Google's decision; many creators are also willing to stuff their streams full of ads to the maximum extent to maximize their own revenue.


--- Quote ---E.g. Amazon Prime, can claim things like cheaper/faster/free delivery services, cheaper (prime exclusive) items in some cases, included ad free (may be adding ads, at some point, in the near future or already, unless you get another subscription, country dependent), and a number of other things.

Hence the Amazon prime subscriptions, make sense for some people.

Just spamming horrible, ultra-repetitive, petty / silly (in my perception), adverts in a number of places, with YouTube videos, then trying to sell a partially blackmailed subscription, to avoid those highly annoying adverts, that they are forcing people to watch.

Doesn't seem to put me into the buying mood ("Hey, maybe I should subscribe to that?").

Whereas, other subscriptions, at apparently much better price levels, free trials or month or months, if you take out their subscription services.  Seem much more palatable.

--- End quote ---

Spotify charges $10.99/month (CAD), and offers none of that kind of thing, is wildly successful, and people don't seem too upset about the pricing. YT Premium is $13.99/month (CAD) and also includes a similar music streaming service. So basically it is $3/month if you drop your Spotify subscription. Seems like a steal to me. It's not going to make value-sense for everyone, but I don't think it's wildly unreasonable based on other competing and similar services. Ad-free Netflix is $16.49 CAD, for example.



--- Quote from: MK14 ---I think the recent AI things, are considerably more expensive.  Because some of the activities, need big, expensive computing horse power (computers and/or graphics cards).  So they need to pass that cost on to the consumers.

When it costs the company, $0.00001 for a quick search or similar, because of the 0.01 seconds CPU time of one webserver.  It can be easily paid for by advertising and/or other things.

But if you use up a (wild estimated time) couple of minutes (perhaps to draw an AI generated image or complicated and long text thing), of a $250,000 computer, jam-packed with very powerful and expensive, very high end, specialist (AI) graphics cards.  It perhaps is costing them (wild guess) $0.25 a time, for such activities (big difficult things, small or medium things, are probably more like $0.01 or less).

--- End quote ---

Speaking more or less about LLMs here. Diffusion models and other generative AI is a bit of a different category, I think. Though something like Github Copilot definitely straddles the line.

This is true (though I'm not sure how to compares to doing a Google search 25 years ago, it might well be comparable in terms of cost thanks to Moore's law), the point is more that they have decided to figure out the monetization model ahead of time, rather than rely on VC with an unclear monetization strategy, and everyone seems to have chosen a model where the user pays based on their usage. Whether that signals that they don't expect users would put up with a 'watch a 15 second ad to see your result' situation, that they don't think it's viable financially, or they just feel it's unethical because it would incentive them to mess with the LLM, I don't know. I do think it is interesting that none of the big players seem to think ads are a good option. Unclear yet if Google, one of the biggest ad companies in the world, will choose to make theirs ad supported or not once it's out of beta, but I kind of doubt it.

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: ve7xen on October 17, 2023, 05:55:56 pm ---I just don't understand why people expect these companies to lay down and let you consume their resources without getting their due. Of course if a significant amount of people are doing that, they're going to spend resources to stop you. Folks acting like they're entitled to consume Google's resources without giving anything in return is absurd.
--- End quote ---
You forget: even though I block the ads, they're still collecting information of my habits and sites I visit and videos I watch, and my e-mail address, and combining that information to a valuable packet of information advertisers are willing to buy (even if that packet contains the information on ad-blocker use).  It is this information profile that they make their profit on, and their gathering of it and selling to others, that is the price I pay for using their services.

The sale of these profiles along with my email address causes me direct personal harm.  Unsolicited directed email advertising to private customers is illegal in Finland, but because Google et al. collect and sell these, I get so much international spam that I have to spend actual resources to combat that.  I've never gotten spam from Finland or from a Finnish company at all, only in English (and in some Asian languages, as sites like Banggood et al. also do the same), plus recently autotranslated crap.  (One that is flooding now sells 'momentary bidirectional translator', because they cannot even get 'instant/momentary' translation right.)

The fact that you're considering me as "acting like they're entitled to consume Google's resources without giving anything in return", is both idiotic and offensive.  Equating it with piracy puts you in my ignore list, because that shit just gets me angry, and that leads to no useful interaction.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod