2 ms·
Again, that is a non-obvious conclusion. Many people will consider ad-supported to be free for the sole reason that it doesn't affect the amount in their bank a
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Again, that is a non-obvious conclusion. Many people will consider ad-supported to be free for the sole reason that it doesn't affect the amount in their bank account.
- Workaccount2 3y agoOk? That doesn't change the facts at hand though Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoIn this thread I'm responding to this: > No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade. Of course nobody wanted to pay with ad view time because youtube didn't require that. In practice, one could watch a youtube video without watching any ads and the practice was allowed because it kept competitors down. > Watching ads is what covers the cost of watching a video. It's no secret that running a site like youtube is extremely expensive. This is exactly correct, and it's why this practice was so effective. Nobody wants to pay with their time and youtube didn't force them. Why is someone going to go to Vid.me where they will be disallowed from blocking ads? The only reason it wasn't necessary for youtube to show the ads is that they had their losses subsidized by google's profits. Going back to what you initially wrote: > No one else wants to run a lemonade stand because they can see customers do not want to pay for lemondade. Because there was a lemonade stand backed by the profits of one of the most profitable companies in history handing out free lemonade, no questions asked. Yeah, nobody else wanted to pay for something that was free in practice, even in the context of time spent watching an ad.