4 ms·

You clearly don't remember television. A 30 minute TV slot had ~7 minutes of unskippable ads, and that's not including the product placement inside the shows. Y

You clearly don't remember television. A 30 minute TV slot had ~7 minutes of unskippable ads, and that's not including the product placement inside the shows. YouTube will have more like 1-2 minutes of skippable ads for a 20-30 minute show, plus an ad inside the show you can fast forward past. I agree Google search barely works anymore though. I've currently switched to yandex which is still broken in other ways, and I've had bad luck with brave search and DDG results.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
TV ads were skippable too if you used a DVR, and also, they are a lot easier to ignore. I used to only watch things live when I really wanted to be part of the shared experience of having seen the premiere (and the associated discussions). By virtue of being further from the device, it seems like TV ads are less onerous on attention than youtube ads.
beowulfey 4y ago
In the early days of cable, one of the benefits offered was few to no ads[1]. The idea was subscription fees would usually cover the cost of the programming, and advertising wasn't needed for revenue. I definitely expect the cycle to repeat, personally. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
- scarface74 4y ago
  This is clearly and obviously a well worn trope and false. Cable TV started as a method to rebroadcast broadcast TV with ads in places that could not get broadcast TV. Then HBO came along. But was always a premium channel. Then the Superstations came along that were rebroadcast of local channels nationally like TBS and WGN with ads. Then cable channels like CNN, MTV, and ESPN came along - with ads. There has never been a time that cable TV was ad free.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Yes, and if one reads that article--rather than just the headline--it's largely about how many viewers assumed that paying for cable would mean they'd have fewer ads but that wasn't actually happening.
    - beowulfey 4y ago
      To me the article read as if cable as it was at the time of writing had minimal advertising, but networks were planning to introduce more of them. I thought it fit the comparison with Youtube slowly ramping up ads really well.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Since most “cable” channels were just rebroadcast over the air channels early on, there was no reason to expect that there were going to be fewer ads. In fact, in the 80s, there was a lot more infomercials on cable TV than today. The only reason there were fewer ads was because cable channels were still trying to get companies to advertise.
        beowulfey 4y ago
        I was referring to the premium channels specifically
- shostack 4y ago
  Agreed. It's smart business to offer ad free to get people hooked, then ramp up the monetization once you have dominance. If people will continue to pay and get ads you are leaving money on the table as a business.
taylodl 4y ago
Have you watched YouTube much in the past week? They've overhauled their ad frequency. Videos are now starting with two unskippable ads and ads are now being displayed at a frequency of about every 5 minutes of content.
- iKlsR 4y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the creator decide on the quantity and ad placements? I've seen hour long videos with one every 5 minutes.
  - taylodl 4y ago
    I used to think that. I was watching a video from a guy (Rick Beato) claiming to not monetize the particular video I was watching (he's never claimed not to monetize any of his videos). He no more than said I'm not monetizing this video when it stopped for an ad. I watch a lot of music instruction videos and it's obvious the content creators are not in control of ad placements. Ads appear whenever Google damn well decides they'll appear, even if it's the most inopportune time for the video. In that way YouTube is actually worse than TV.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    You have to have a certain level of subscribers before youtube will let a content creator decide how the ads work.
- evandale 4y ago
  I agree here. I've started watching Kitchen Nightmares on YouTube and for a 40 minute episode there's usually 2 ads to start the episode and another 4 or 5 breaks for ads. The breaks are either 2 ads that can be skipped after 5 seconds or a single 15 second unskippable ad.
- tkgally 4y ago
  I subscribed to YouTube Premium a year or so ago after somebody mentioned it here on HN. It was worth it; YouTube is a much more pleasant experience without ads. I was already paying for YouTube Music, which I’m not as satisfied with but have stayed with ever since Google Play Music ended. Adding Premium for videos increased the subscription price for me by just a few dollars a month.
bitcharmer 4y ago
> YouTube will have more like 1-2 minutes of skippable ads for a 20-30 minute show, plus an ad inside the show you can fast forward past. You must be using different YouTube than the rest of us. Or you're trolling. Or you work for Google.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

TV ads were skippable too if you used a DVR, and also, they are a lot easier to ignore. I used to only watch things live when I really wanted to be part of the shared experience of having seen the premiere (and the associated discussions). By virtue of being further from the device, it seems like TV ads are less onerous on attention than youtube ads.

beowulfey 4y ago

In the early days of cable, one of the benefits offered was few to no ads[1]. The idea was subscription fees would usually cover the cost of the programming, and advertising wasn't needed for revenue. I definitely expect the cycle to repeat, personally. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...

scarface74 4y ago
This is clearly and obviously a well worn trope and false. Cable TV started as a method to rebroadcast broadcast TV with ads in places that could not get broadcast TV. Then HBO came along. But was always a premium channel. Then the Superstations came along that were rebroadcast of local channels nationally like TBS and WGN with ads. Then cable channels like CNN, MTV, and ESPN came along - with ads. There has never been a time that cable TV was ad free.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Yes, and if one reads that article--rather than just the headline--it's largely about how many viewers assumed that paying for cable would mean they'd have fewer ads but that wasn't actually happening.
  - beowulfey 4y ago
    To me the article read as if cable as it was at the time of writing had minimal advertising, but networks were planning to introduce more of them. I thought it fit the comparison with Youtube slowly ramping up ads really well.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Since most “cable” channels were just rebroadcast over the air channels early on, there was no reason to expect that there were going to be fewer ads. In fact, in the 80s, there was a lot more infomercials on cable TV than today. The only reason there were fewer ads was because cable channels were still trying to get companies to advertise.
      - beowulfey 4y ago
        I was referring to the premium channels specifically
shostack 4y ago
Agreed. It's smart business to offer ad free to get people hooked, then ramp up the monetization once you have dominance. If people will continue to pay and get ads you are leaving money on the table as a business.

taylodl 4y ago

Have you watched YouTube much in the past week? They've overhauled their ad frequency. Videos are now starting with two unskippable ads and ads are now being displayed at a frequency of about every 5 minutes of content.

iKlsR 4y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the creator decide on the quantity and ad placements? I've seen hour long videos with one every 5 minutes.
- taylodl 4y ago
  I used to think that. I was watching a video from a guy (Rick Beato) claiming to not monetize the particular video I was watching (he's never claimed not to monetize any of his videos). He no more than said I'm not monetizing this video when it stopped for an ad. I watch a lot of music instruction videos and it's obvious the content creators are not in control of ad placements. Ads appear whenever Google damn well decides they'll appear, even if it's the most inopportune time for the video. In that way YouTube is actually worse than TV.
- monocasa 4y ago
  You have to have a certain level of subscribers before youtube will let a content creator decide how the ads work.
evandale 4y ago
I agree here. I've started watching Kitchen Nightmares on YouTube and for a 40 minute episode there's usually 2 ads to start the episode and another 4 or 5 breaks for ads. The breaks are either 2 ads that can be skipped after 5 seconds or a single 15 second unskippable ad.
tkgally 4y ago
I subscribed to YouTube Premium a year or so ago after somebody mentioned it here on HN. It was worth it; YouTube is a much more pleasant experience without ads. I was already paying for YouTube Music, which I’m not as satisfied with but have stayed with ever since Google Play Music ended. Adding Premium for videos increased the subscription price for me by just a few dollars a month.

bitcharmer 4y ago

> YouTube will have more like 1-2 minutes of skippable ads for a 20-30 minute show, plus an ad inside the show you can fast forward past. You must be using different YouTube than the rest of us. Or you're trolling. Or you work for Google.