4 ms·

This marks the moment Google officially decided it didn’t know how to innovate any longer, and that it’s time to grab all they can to increase the bottom line.

This marks the moment Google officially decided it didn’t know how to innovate any longer, and that it’s time to grab all they can to increase the bottom line. Most technology companies follow this same cycle. When they’re in the innovation/disruption phase, there are less rules, they just focus on giving people the best experience. When they start stagnating, suddenly every cent matters. The irony is that the profile type most likely to have an AdBlocker is the Silicon Valley engineer. They spend so much time online, that it would be really annoying to have ads. I already found a fix: I use another YouTube client that displays the stream directly without showing the ads. My guess is more people will do that - unless the adblockers get better. If YouTube goes as far as protecting the streaming servers themselves with greater authentication, people will likely go elsewhere… TikTok… Insta… or the many other video platforms that have been popping up as a result of censorship. But I am skeptical everyday people are willing to wait for ads - or pay for social media.

konschubert 3y ago
I’ve been blocking ads for a long time but I’m not going to cry about mistreatment when somebody shuts the back door that I’ve been using to get free lunch. The ads are annoying, I might just use nebula more.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  I find myself using Nebula more and more because most of the creators I watch are there and their app, while imperfect, is miles better than YouTube on the Apple TV. I'm currently subbed to YouTube Premium so I don't get ads either way, but if Google ever changes that, you can bet I'm unsubbing immediately. I only tolerate how expensive it is because of the sheer amount of content I watch from there, and because I watch the majority through Apple TV's where adblocking is a lot more complicated than I'm willing to deal with.
bravoetch 3y ago
Put simply, the end user is not the customer. The shareholders are. As in "we need a product that harvests money from people" instead of "let's solve a problem for people while adding value".
- sva_ 3y ago
  Pretty sure the customers are the entities who buy advertisement space.
- louison11 3y ago
  Solving a problem is harvesting money when it’s well done. It’s when they stop solving new problems that they have to optimize their existing revenue streams at the cost of user satisfaction.
kdwikzncba 3y ago
> This marks the moment Google officially decided it didn’t know how to innovate any longer What? THIS marks that moment? I haven't seen google innovate since they built google search. Literally every other successful thing they have was bought.
- caturopath 3y ago
  Gmail, Chrome, Docs, Android, Safe Browsing, Translate... (Yes, some of these involved acquisitions, but there is a difference between acquiring YouTube and acquiring Android Inc.) Google is in a bad place, but I think it's silly to pretend like they didn't have anything else interesting or successful.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Google has plenty of interesting and successful things in their stable, and there’s plenty of innovation in their 25 year history. The argument being put forth is that little of it is the result of recent innovative activity.
    - caturopath 3y ago
      It sounds like you agree with me and not with the person I was replying to?
robryan 3y ago
The silicon valley engineer should also be able to easily afford premium.
siddheshgunjal 3y ago
Every innovation they have tried themselves has failed and they just discontinued it. Other good things they have done are actually by buying other startups and then using their tech .
ssl232 3y ago
I'm not even convinced they'll make more money clamping down on ad blocking this way. I'd happily pay £1 or £2 a month for no ads, which is still infinitely more than they make out of me now (given I never willingly click on, engage with or otherwise view their or anyone else's ads), but I know a rip-off when I see one and £12.99/month definitely is.
Mandatum 3y ago
YouTube has been a thorn in the side of Google for a long time. Think about it, what has YouTube brought to Alphabet other than brand recognition? YouTube has already peaked. It's not profitable. It's a source of a lot of drama, and ill-will toward the company, it doesn't generate much ad revenue, it's no longer a "feat of engineering" that so many people talked about in the mid-2000s - and it seems like the general populace whom generate a lot of revenue by being targeted on the platform (eg US, North America, Western Europe, Australia) are beginning to shift from adblockers is the exception, to adblockers is the default. I've worked at F500's where uBlock Origin is part of the Chrome Enterprise profile. Why? It brings security, and performance, to the majority of users. Yes there's occasional issues, but it's worth it. I suspect we'll see YouTube clients built into AdBlocking software (eg I'm pretty sure SponsorBlock has already begun this). AdBlock and uBlock Origin likely won't implement this, at least initially - but I can definitely see this taking off. At that point, what can Google do? They'll enforce their walled garden and kill off all Google-ToS breaching extensions.
- windowshopping 3y ago
  Source for "it's not profitable"?

konschubert 3y ago

I’ve been blocking ads for a long time but I’m not going to cry about mistreatment when somebody shuts the back door that I’ve been using to get free lunch. The ads are annoying, I might just use nebula more.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I find myself using Nebula more and more because most of the creators I watch are there and their app, while imperfect, is miles better than YouTube on the Apple TV. I'm currently subbed to YouTube Premium so I don't get ads either way, but if Google ever changes that, you can bet I'm unsubbing immediately. I only tolerate how expensive it is because of the sheer amount of content I watch from there, and because I watch the majority through Apple TV's where adblocking is a lot more complicated than I'm willing to deal with.

bravoetch 3y ago

Put simply, the end user is not the customer. The shareholders are. As in "we need a product that harvests money from people" instead of "let's solve a problem for people while adding value".

sva_ 3y ago
Pretty sure the customers are the entities who buy advertisement space.
louison11 3y ago
Solving a problem is harvesting money when it’s well done. It’s when they stop solving new problems that they have to optimize their existing revenue streams at the cost of user satisfaction.

kdwikzncba 3y ago

> This marks the moment Google officially decided it didn’t know how to innovate any longer What? THIS marks that moment? I haven't seen google innovate since they built google search. Literally every other successful thing they have was bought.

caturopath 3y ago
Gmail, Chrome, Docs, Android, Safe Browsing, Translate... (Yes, some of these involved acquisitions, but there is a difference between acquiring YouTube and acquiring Android Inc.) Google is in a bad place, but I think it's silly to pretend like they didn't have anything else interesting or successful.
- simondotau 3y ago
  Google has plenty of interesting and successful things in their stable, and there’s plenty of innovation in their 25 year history. The argument being put forth is that little of it is the result of recent innovative activity.
  - caturopath 3y ago
    It sounds like you agree with me and not with the person I was replying to?

robryan 3y ago

The silicon valley engineer should also be able to easily afford premium.

siddheshgunjal 3y ago

Every innovation they have tried themselves has failed and they just discontinued it. Other good things they have done are actually by buying other startups and then using their tech .

ssl232 3y ago

I'm not even convinced they'll make more money clamping down on ad blocking this way. I'd happily pay £1 or £2 a month for no ads, which is still infinitely more than they make out of me now (given I never willingly click on, engage with or otherwise view their or anyone else's ads), but I know a rip-off when I see one and £12.99/month definitely is.

Mandatum 3y ago

YouTube has been a thorn in the side of Google for a long time. Think about it, what has YouTube brought to Alphabet other than brand recognition? YouTube has already peaked. It's not profitable. It's a source of a lot of drama, and ill-will toward the company, it doesn't generate much ad revenue, it's no longer a "feat of engineering" that so many people talked about in the mid-2000s - and it seems like the general populace whom generate a lot of revenue by being targeted on the platform (eg US, North America, Western Europe, Australia) are beginning to shift from adblockers is the exception, to adblockers is the default. I've worked at F500's where uBlock Origin is part of the Chrome Enterprise profile. Why? It brings security, and performance, to the majority of users. Yes there's occasional issues, but it's worth it. I suspect we'll see YouTube clients built into AdBlocking software (eg I'm pretty sure SponsorBlock has already begun this). AdBlock and uBlock Origin likely won't implement this, at least initially - but I can definitely see this taking off. At that point, what can Google do? They'll enforce their walled garden and kill off all Google-ToS breaching extensions.

windowshopping 3y ago
Source for "it's not profitable"?