3 ms·

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 the

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
Larrikin 3y ago
I think it would be an interesting statistic to know the number of Firefox users versus the number of Firefox users that do NOT have an ad blocker installed. The late comer executives to Google seem content with burning it all to the ground and pursuing "be evil" at all cost. I think Google is too big at this point to ever disappear, but it seems like it's ripe for a reset for their business model. They do have products that are actually good, but there's a disease in the company that if it doesn't help ads it's a problem. It would be nice if all this anti ad blocker bull shit ends up with another IE moment with people switching back to Firefox to bring Chrome in line. I'm not super hopeful because there are so many shitty boot camp JS devs now that would rather advocate for blocking non Chromium browsers over adhering to standards and figuring out why their bad code isn't working, but one can hope.

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

Larrikin 3y ago

I think it would be an interesting statistic to know the number of Firefox users versus the number of Firefox users that do NOT have an ad blocker installed. The late comer executives to Google seem content with burning it all to the ground and pursuing "be evil" at all cost. I think Google is too big at this point to ever disappear, but it seems like it's ripe for a reset for their business model. They do have products that are actually good, but there's a disease in the company that if it doesn't help ads it's a problem. It would be nice if all this anti ad blocker bull shit ends up with another IE moment with people switching back to Firefox to bring Chrome in line. I'm not super hopeful because there are so many shitty boot camp JS devs now that would rather advocate for blocking non Chromium browsers over adhering to standards and figuring out why their bad code isn't working, but one can hope.