5 ms·

This is a lie. The slow-down of YouTube page loads was done on purpose. YouTube worked perfect with ad-blockers for a decade. It only started now.

Roark66 3y ago
The title is wrong. They don't "blame ad blockers" they admit they slow down ad blockers. So it is their conscious choice, not some sort of "adblockers cause issues" thing.
- drngdds 3y ago
  Simultaneously irritating and "well yeah." No one likes ads or monthly subscriptions, but serving video is expensive, so why not deprioritize the users who are giving you zero dollars and zero cents?
  - timeon 3y ago
    Why they bought popular free platform when they are struggling to maintain it? Youtube is go-to platform for video publishing because it started as free platform. When they captured this segment of web, they have overloaded it with ads. I do not expect anyone serving me for free. But it is not bearable when everything and everyone expects you to use these walled gardens.
    - tg180 3y ago
      >when they are struggling to maintain it? YouTube is not losing money, it's a significant contributor to Alphabet's overall revenue. They are not struggling to maintain it, they're trying to milk the cash cow...
      - timeon 3y ago
        That is probably true. I was just reacting to: 'serving video is expensive'.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > YouTube is not losing money, it's a significant contributor to Alphabet's overall revenue. There's no contradiction between those two ideas. Something that loses a lot of money is more likely to be a significant contributor to revenue, because you can't lose a lot of money without seeing a lot of use. But why would anyone care about revenue? Is it a significant contributor to profit? Last I heard, Alphabet doesn't even provide a breakdown of how much of its money comes from YouTube.
    - krsrhe 3y ago
      [dead]
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      How is youtube a walled garden?
      - timeon 3y ago
        I consider tracking [0] and excessive Ads as wall. Many sites that are not behind the wall are providing part of their content through embedded Youtube videos. In order to see that content you need to agree with tracking. Those sites use Youtube just because it is often considered as standard.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Youtube's destiny was always to be ad supported or a subscription. If you think there can be a free platform (truly free) I highly encourage you to look up the fate of youtubes biggest competitive threat of the last decade: Vid.me, an actually whole hearted VC funded attempt to dethrone youtube. And it worked great for a bit..
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
    It would be nice if Google charged what it cost to store/deliver the content. I mean they aren't paying for the content — that's on the backs of the content creators, most of which I suspect see no positive cash-flow for their time and effort. I'd also like to see 70% of the subscriber money go to the content creators (which appears to be the new standard royalty cut) and do away with the ads, ad revenue. Wanting both ad revenue and subscriber money is a bit like the bait-and-switch we saw from cable television when it debuted.
    - mvdtnz 3y ago
      There are no ads for subscribers though.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      There is no bait and switch. There are 2 options, ad-supported and ad-free.
  - Moldoteck 3y ago
    question is, will I, as ublock user & premium payer have this problem?
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      I have not.
- karmakaze 3y ago
  Does it make pragmatic sense? What percentage of folks with Firefox using ad-blockers will even know the reason for the slowdown and be motivated to disable their ad-blocker or pay for premium. If it's purely punitive, that's their prerogative. I can't see this small sliver of volume impacting operational cost or even opportunity cost. Lower usage, even from those using ad-blockers isn't a metric to strive for.
  - ravenstine 3y ago
    Yeah, it would be conversions of ad-blockers to Premium subscriptions. And they will get some of those, maybe even a lot. I believe it will be a challenge for YouTube to convince enough of those people using ad-blockers to convert. I've considered getting Premium, and perhaps I will eventually because the experience in the YouTube app on the TV (not "YouTube TV") has become so unpleasant because of ads. But I really don't want to. I don't trust YouTube to not roll out "reasonable ads" for Premium in the near future. If Amazon decides to retroactively place ads on their TVs, YouTube more easily can do the same for Premium. It'd be one thing if YouTube was a different company, in which case I wouldn't hesitate to pay. But we know the kind of people they are.
    - jmnicolas 3y ago
      Can't you use some kind of DNS blocker (like pi-hole or the other one) to block ads on your TV?
      - ravenstine 3y ago
        Yes, but not when I'm using my YouTube account on someone else's TV to show them something.
    - karmakaze 3y ago
      I was thinking the conversions from Firefox users using adblockers would be too small--but they have to do this otherwise there's an incentive to switch from Chrome. Edit: Just saw this post "In June 2024, ad blockers such as uBlock Origin will be disabled in Chrome 127". So there's an incentive either way. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758
karaterobot 3y ago
Google openly admitted this, as the article makes clear but the headline of this post does not.
zlg_codes 3y ago
I expect them to ratchet it up eventually and begin threatening Google Accounts for those who use adblockers. They'll just dress it up in Terms of Use or some bullshit, and the Javascript Cold War begins.
- lcmatt 3y ago
  Easy solution is to create a new account that's only used for Youtube - or even easier don't login at all.

Roark66 3y ago

The title is wrong. They don't "blame ad blockers" they admit they slow down ad blockers. So it is their conscious choice, not some sort of "adblockers cause issues" thing.

drngdds 3y ago
Simultaneously irritating and "well yeah." No one likes ads or monthly subscriptions, but serving video is expensive, so why not deprioritize the users who are giving you zero dollars and zero cents?
- timeon 3y ago
  Why they bought popular free platform when they are struggling to maintain it? Youtube is go-to platform for video publishing because it started as free platform. When they captured this segment of web, they have overloaded it with ads. I do not expect anyone serving me for free. But it is not bearable when everything and everyone expects you to use these walled gardens.
  - tg180 3y ago
    >when they are struggling to maintain it? YouTube is not losing money, it's a significant contributor to Alphabet's overall revenue. They are not struggling to maintain it, they're trying to milk the cash cow...
    - timeon 3y ago
      That is probably true. I was just reacting to: 'serving video is expensive'.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > YouTube is not losing money, it's a significant contributor to Alphabet's overall revenue. There's no contradiction between those two ideas. Something that loses a lot of money is more likely to be a significant contributor to revenue, because you can't lose a lot of money without seeing a lot of use. But why would anyone care about revenue? Is it a significant contributor to profit? Last I heard, Alphabet doesn't even provide a breakdown of how much of its money comes from YouTube.
  - krsrhe 3y ago
    [dead]
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    How is youtube a walled garden?
    - timeon 3y ago
      I consider tracking [0] and excessive Ads as wall. Many sites that are not behind the wall are providing part of their content through embedded Youtube videos. In order to see that content you need to agree with tracking. Those sites use Youtube just because it is often considered as standard.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Youtube's destiny was always to be ad supported or a subscription. If you think there can be a free platform (truly free) I highly encourage you to look up the fate of youtubes biggest competitive threat of the last decade: Vid.me, an actually whole hearted VC funded attempt to dethrone youtube. And it worked great for a bit..
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  It would be nice if Google charged what it cost to store/deliver the content. I mean they aren't paying for the content — that's on the backs of the content creators, most of which I suspect see no positive cash-flow for their time and effort. I'd also like to see 70% of the subscriber money go to the content creators (which appears to be the new standard royalty cut) and do away with the ads, ad revenue. Wanting both ad revenue and subscriber money is a bit like the bait-and-switch we saw from cable television when it debuted.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    There are no ads for subscribers though.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    There is no bait and switch. There are 2 options, ad-supported and ad-free.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  question is, will I, as ublock user & premium payer have this problem?
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    I have not.
karmakaze 3y ago
Does it make pragmatic sense? What percentage of folks with Firefox using ad-blockers will even know the reason for the slowdown and be motivated to disable their ad-blocker or pay for premium. If it's purely punitive, that's their prerogative. I can't see this small sliver of volume impacting operational cost or even opportunity cost. Lower usage, even from those using ad-blockers isn't a metric to strive for.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  Yeah, it would be conversions of ad-blockers to Premium subscriptions. And they will get some of those, maybe even a lot. I believe it will be a challenge for YouTube to convince enough of those people using ad-blockers to convert. I've considered getting Premium, and perhaps I will eventually because the experience in the YouTube app on the TV (not "YouTube TV") has become so unpleasant because of ads. But I really don't want to. I don't trust YouTube to not roll out "reasonable ads" for Premium in the near future. If Amazon decides to retroactively place ads on their TVs, YouTube more easily can do the same for Premium. It'd be one thing if YouTube was a different company, in which case I wouldn't hesitate to pay. But we know the kind of people they are.
  - jmnicolas 3y ago
    Can't you use some kind of DNS blocker (like pi-hole or the other one) to block ads on your TV?
    - ravenstine 3y ago
      Yes, but not when I'm using my YouTube account on someone else's TV to show them something.
  - karmakaze 3y ago
    I was thinking the conversions from Firefox users using adblockers would be too small--but they have to do this otherwise there's an incentive to switch from Chrome. Edit: Just saw this post "In June 2024, ad blockers such as uBlock Origin will be disabled in Chrome 127". So there's an incentive either way. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38361758

karaterobot 3y ago

Google openly admitted this, as the article makes clear but the headline of this post does not.

zlg_codes 3y ago

I expect them to ratchet it up eventually and begin threatening Google Accounts for those who use adblockers. They'll just dress it up in Terms of Use or some bullshit, and the Javascript Cold War begins.

lcmatt 3y ago
Easy solution is to create a new account that's only used for Youtube - or even easier don't login at all.