5 ms·

I fail to understand the economics behind this. If google cant show ads, and people dont want to pay for a subscription, how are they going to be able to keep y

I fail to understand the economics behind this. If google cant show ads, and people dont want to pay for a subscription, how are they going to be able to keep youtube up and running? It’s not a public service, they have to monetise somehow.

t0mas88 3y ago
They are free to make it a paid subscription service, no legal challenge there. What they cannot do is access your device without your consent. So scanning for adblock extensions is illegal in Europe if you didn't ask permission for it.
- acdha 3y ago
  It’s still to be decided whether that’s illegal and the most likely outcome would be a switch to a fail safe approach: don’t detect an ad blocker, validate that the ad played. That’s not perfect of course but they have billions of dollars to fund it.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
Use of adblockers has been pretty constant over time and YT has existed through that entire time. There doesn't seem to be any danger of this scenario actually happening. "Normies" just don't care enough to install adblock.
astronads 3y ago
They don’t have an inherent right to exist or be profitable. If the EU agrees this violates GDPR then they will have to adapt or die.
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  And EU would have to cave after people complain that YouTube, tiktok, every news site, reddit, the entire internet becomes nothing more than a pay wall to them. Or maybe more likely, consume content from unfriendly countries who will simply ignore the regulation, and force a continuous game of whack a mole with their domains.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Not necessarily, if the enforcement of these regulations allows domestic competitors (that respect the GDPR) to appear? If Europe takes this stance, those competitors could also be allowed to mirror the content from foreign, non-GDPR-compliant companies, effectively giving them the best of both worlds?
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      And how would that domestic competitor make money? Can't use ads, can't charge a subscription fee. What else? Where would this domestic competitor even get the content from? Steal it from YouTube/TikTok?
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        You can charge a subscription fee. You can even use untargeted ads as an alternative. But maybe the website can just (in combination with a universal micropayments system) charge a reasonable fee and that people will just pay it? > Steal it from YouTube/TikTok? That's another hypothesis. The EU could just rule that it's legal to copy content provided for free and then legally "steal" it from other platforms?
        belltaco 3y ago
        > You can even use untargeted ads as an alternative. Why wouldn't those ads be blocked? And they cannot take countermeasures if they were held as illegal in this case. Not sure how that's an alternative. >That's another hypothesis. The EU could just rule that it's legal to copy content provided for free and then legally "steal" it from other platforms? Won't that kill EU content creators more than other ones, because non-English EU based content is mostly created and consumed within the EU.
        Aerroon 3y ago
        But YouTube Premium already exists. It costs €8.5/month here. It gets rid of all of the ads.
jalgos_eminator 3y ago
How does Netflix make money? HBO Max? Apple TV? Amazon Prime Video? Google wants to have their cake and eat it too by having a "free" platform but also controlling exactly how people view it in their browser. If you want to actually control content you need to have a real paywall. There are ways they could implement ads that would not be blockable (with a logged in user), but they don't want to do that for some reason.
- eek2121 3y ago
  Well, Netflix DOES control how you view video in your browser, however. Open a video in Firefox? No 4K for you. Hardware DRM is also used. Don’t have an HDCP-enabled display/GPU/Driver? Low bitrate welcomes you.
znpy 3y ago
> how are they going to be able to keep youtube up and running The very same way that they’ve been doing so far. YouTube/Google/Alphabet is definitely not short on cash, so that means that even with ad blocking they’re doing just fine.
nurple 3y ago
The internet before huge conglomerates started stealing and monetizing people's content through forced network effects would have absolutely blown your mind then.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  The pixels were sometimes larger than my thumb though. And every video was cut into short segments.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > every video was cut into short segments Which is a completely arbitrary restriction, thus people were working around it by splitting their video in parts? It isn't any cheaper to serve 10 short video files instead of 1 long video file (in fact it might be more expensive since a good codec would make 1 video file smaller in size than its equivalent separated into 10 discrete files).
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      Early in YT history you could leave a video page open and it would buffer an entire video. Was great on slow connections, but buffering a 10 minute video versus buffering a 10h video way certainly different in terms of server load.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    P2P systems were able to deliver dvd rips 15 years ago, and even normies knew how to use them. Cheap, robust, high quality media delivery is a political problem, not a technical one.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  You guys are so naïve. The answer is that everyone will end up on a Chinese clone of Youtube which will simply ignore GDPR.
  - malermeister 3y ago
gtowey 3y ago
I think there are two aspects to this which are worth challenging. First and foremost is the issue of companies trying to dictate what you are allowed to do on your own computer. If Google sends you the data, who are they to say how your computer decides to interpret it? What's next? Mandatory camera access so they can monitor your living room to make sure "unauthorized" people aren't watching? They would if they could get away with it. Two is the business model of offering a free, useful service until people are hooked and then squeezing people for money. It's dishonest, it's extortion. Especially something like YouTube where the site itself is meaningless without the content creators who all largely started out as volunteers. It's the digital equivalent of a time-share sales pitch. Trap your audience. It perverts the normal operation of markets because everyone made decisions to use YouTube based on false economics, and now they are such a behemoth that moving to other platforms is not realistic for many. Had they not been allowed to do that, then the competitive landscape would look much different.
meiraleal 3y ago
Google has enough cash and is big enough. I want it to be smaller and less powerful, the economics of this is that we are tired of superpowerful Google.
mordae 3y ago
I want YouTube to become just one in the many competing video hosting services with various business and ownership models. I mostly like how nebula.tv runs their business (being owned collectively by the authors themselves, flat fee, no ads). Maybe we can have more of those instead?
Nextgrid 3y ago
Isn't that the whole premise of capitalism? If one business can't profitably exist (or can no longer exist due to changing market conditions or regulation) then something else will take its place if it's able to deliver the same service for cheaper?

t0mas88 3y ago

They are free to make it a paid subscription service, no legal challenge there. What they cannot do is access your device without your consent. So scanning for adblock extensions is illegal in Europe if you didn't ask permission for it.

acdha 3y ago
It’s still to be decided whether that’s illegal and the most likely outcome would be a switch to a fail safe approach: don’t detect an ad blocker, validate that the ad played. That’s not perfect of course but they have billions of dollars to fund it.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

Use of adblockers has been pretty constant over time and YT has existed through that entire time. There doesn't seem to be any danger of this scenario actually happening. "Normies" just don't care enough to install adblock.

astronads 3y ago

They don’t have an inherent right to exist or be profitable. If the EU agrees this violates GDPR then they will have to adapt or die.

ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
And EU would have to cave after people complain that YouTube, tiktok, every news site, reddit, the entire internet becomes nothing more than a pay wall to them. Or maybe more likely, consume content from unfriendly countries who will simply ignore the regulation, and force a continuous game of whack a mole with their domains.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Not necessarily, if the enforcement of these regulations allows domestic competitors (that respect the GDPR) to appear? If Europe takes this stance, those competitors could also be allowed to mirror the content from foreign, non-GDPR-compliant companies, effectively giving them the best of both worlds?
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    And how would that domestic competitor make money? Can't use ads, can't charge a subscription fee. What else? Where would this domestic competitor even get the content from? Steal it from YouTube/TikTok?
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      You can charge a subscription fee. You can even use untargeted ads as an alternative. But maybe the website can just (in combination with a universal micropayments system) charge a reasonable fee and that people will just pay it? > Steal it from YouTube/TikTok? That's another hypothesis. The EU could just rule that it's legal to copy content provided for free and then legally "steal" it from other platforms?
      - belltaco 3y ago
        > You can even use untargeted ads as an alternative. Why wouldn't those ads be blocked? And they cannot take countermeasures if they were held as illegal in this case. Not sure how that's an alternative. >That's another hypothesis. The EU could just rule that it's legal to copy content provided for free and then legally "steal" it from other platforms? Won't that kill EU content creators more than other ones, because non-English EU based content is mostly created and consumed within the EU.
      - Aerroon 3y ago
        But YouTube Premium already exists. It costs €8.5/month here. It gets rid of all of the ads.

jalgos_eminator 3y ago

How does Netflix make money? HBO Max? Apple TV? Amazon Prime Video? Google wants to have their cake and eat it too by having a "free" platform but also controlling exactly how people view it in their browser. If you want to actually control content you need to have a real paywall. There are ways they could implement ads that would not be blockable (with a logged in user), but they don't want to do that for some reason.

eek2121 3y ago
Well, Netflix DOES control how you view video in your browser, however. Open a video in Firefox? No 4K for you. Hardware DRM is also used. Don’t have an HDCP-enabled display/GPU/Driver? Low bitrate welcomes you.

znpy 3y ago

> how are they going to be able to keep youtube up and running The very same way that they’ve been doing so far. YouTube/Google/Alphabet is definitely not short on cash, so that means that even with ad blocking they’re doing just fine.

nurple 3y ago

The internet before huge conglomerates started stealing and monetizing people's content through forced network effects would have absolutely blown your mind then.

Aerroon 3y ago
The pixels were sometimes larger than my thumb though. And every video was cut into short segments.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > every video was cut into short segments Which is a completely arbitrary restriction, thus people were working around it by splitting their video in parts? It isn't any cheaper to serve 10 short video files instead of 1 long video file (in fact it might be more expensive since a good codec would make 1 video file smaller in size than its equivalent separated into 10 discrete files).
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    Early in YT history you could leave a video page open and it would buffer an entire video. Was great on slow connections, but buffering a 10 minute video versus buffering a 10h video way certainly different in terms of server load.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  P2P systems were able to deliver dvd rips 15 years ago, and even normies knew how to use them. Cheap, robust, high quality media delivery is a political problem, not a technical one.
renewiltord 3y ago
You guys are so naïve. The answer is that everyone will end up on a Chinese clone of Youtube which will simply ignore GDPR.
- malermeister 3y ago

gtowey 3y ago

I think there are two aspects to this which are worth challenging. First and foremost is the issue of companies trying to dictate what you are allowed to do on your own computer. If Google sends you the data, who are they to say how your computer decides to interpret it? What's next? Mandatory camera access so they can monitor your living room to make sure "unauthorized" people aren't watching? They would if they could get away with it. Two is the business model of offering a free, useful service until people are hooked and then squeezing people for money. It's dishonest, it's extortion. Especially something like YouTube where the site itself is meaningless without the content creators who all largely started out as volunteers. It's the digital equivalent of a time-share sales pitch. Trap your audience. It perverts the normal operation of markets because everyone made decisions to use YouTube based on false economics, and now they are such a behemoth that moving to other platforms is not realistic for many. Had they not been allowed to do that, then the competitive landscape would look much different.

meiraleal 3y ago

Google has enough cash and is big enough. I want it to be smaller and less powerful, the economics of this is that we are tired of superpowerful Google.

mordae 3y ago

I want YouTube to become just one in the many competing video hosting services with various business and ownership models. I mostly like how nebula.tv runs their business (being owned collectively by the authors themselves, flat fee, no ads). Maybe we can have more of those instead?

Nextgrid 3y ago

Isn't that the whole premise of capitalism? If one business can't profitably exist (or can no longer exist due to changing market conditions or regulation) then something else will take its place if it's able to deliver the same service for cheaper?