6 ms·

baz00 admits cracking down on using Google. Only way to do something about this crap.

by baz00 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago
Why would they care about losing you when they aren't making any money on you? "McDonalds cracks down on people taking ketchup without ordering anything" "Then I'll stop taking ketchup from McDonalds, that will show em!" It is only paying/ad viewers that matters, until they start to lose those they wont care.
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  Less use of Google = less chance of me seeing Google ads. The analogy is more accurately this: McDonalds giving away ketchup--instead of selling it or providing with the order--but making you watch an ad first.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Less use of Google = less chance of me seeing Google ads. But you are using an ad-blocker, you don't see google ads. If you aren't using an ad-blocker then this topic isn't about you.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  > It is only paying/ad viewers that matters, until they start to lose those they wont care. They prefer you use youtube ad-free than go take the crowd to another platform. Microsoft famously said that they prefer people to pirate Windows than to use Linux/Mac.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Pirating OS users tend to become paying OS users after a while, when they need to perform a job etc. Ad blocking users aren't becoming paying or ad-viewing users, they stay unprofitable forever.
    - alex7734 3y ago
      They stay unprofitable forever individually but they stay on YouTube instead of making another video site popular, which on the whole is better for YouTube.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        But that isn't an as big deal as it sounds. Many use TikTok for example, but TikTok barely pays anything to creators so anyone who gets big on TikTok moves to YouTube to make money. As long as you make the most money at YouTube that will keep happening, and all those ads is why people make so much money making videos on YouTube. This leads to an Apple situation where Apple doesn't have the most users but most of the money goes to them since they can extract much more money per user. It isn't a bad situation to be in.
        alex7734 3y ago
        I would agree with that if most of the costs of YouTube were paying the creators, but my guess is they're not. If YouTube gives, for example, Vimeo the chance to become big enough and they just happen to be more efficient than YouTube and also decide to pay the creators just a little bit more than YouTube, isn't it even a tiny bit reasonable that maybe Vimeo could gradually replace YouTube in the future? Of course Vimeo would have to fight off adblockers too to compete in money extraction with YouTube but that's not my point, my point is that YouTube now has a monopoly and any actions that threaten that, such as strongarming people into watching 3 preroll unskippable ads, are in my opinion silly and self-defeating. They're just too greedy. If they made the price of YouTube Premium something reasonable ($1 or $2 a month instead of $14 or whatever it is) they would get a lot more subscribers and probably even get more revenue. $1 or $2 is not worth spending even 10 minutes digging in obfuscated JavaScript to fix an adblocker, so this whole thing would go a lot smoother for them if they charged that. Even if $14 is not a lot people just don't want to pay that much.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  I pay for the ad-free versions of Hulu, HBO ("Max"), Disney Plus, and Paramount Plus. YouTube managed to sufficiently tick me off that I refuse to give them one penny.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    Same here. I’ve subscribed to so many different streaming platforms and refuse to pay for Google Premium
- baz00 3y ago
  What makes you think I give a crap what they care about? This is about what I care about and choose to participate in. I choose to not take the ketchup and not go in McDonald’s. And my life is better for it. Actually I like a McPlant and an apple pie occasionally but that’s another story…
- eertami 3y ago
  Even if I watch the ad nobody is making any money from it. I'm just saving their bandwidth. But even with the latest 'crackdown', I haven't seen a single advert or nag screen so I guess the crackdown isn't very effective.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    >Even if I watch the ad nobody is making any money from it. What?
- tomrod 3y ago
  Because they mine my data and could get goodwill marketing from me if they showed they gave a damn. Instead, they've grown too big, they've grown too frail, they've grown too meaningless. So, time to move on.
- strken 3y ago
  I've paid for content on YouTube before, through Purchases, and I won't do that anymore if there's even a hint they'll try to detect my adblocker in the future. Thing is, I'm not going to pay their excessive and ongoing subscription fee under any circumstances. I watch maybe an hour of videos a week, but all of them are just to kill time, and they're not worth double digits a month to me. I was happy to have a transactional relationship with them for paid content, and they likely made a net profit from me even with an ad blocker, but if I can't trust them to provide ongoing access to the content I bought then I won't buy any more.
butz 3y ago
I'm going same way too. When first speculations about ad-blockers being blocked on Youtube I started investigating alternative video platforms, and reducing video watching overall. Worst thing is that many public services and companies are still using Youtube as single available video repository, not considering that their website or service use instructions end up covered with annoying ads, that are distracting and time consuming.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

baz00 admits cracking down on using Google. Only way to do something about this crap.

by baz00 3y ago

baz00 admits cracking down on using Google. Only way to do something about this crap.

Why would they care about losing you when they aren't making any money on you? "McDonalds cracks down on people taking ketchup without ordering anything" "Then I'll stop taking ketchup from McDonalds, that will show em!" It is only paying/ad viewers that matters, until they start to lose those they wont care.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago
Less use of Google = less chance of me seeing Google ads. The analogy is more accurately this: McDonalds giving away ketchup--instead of selling it or providing with the order--but making you watch an ad first.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Less use of Google = less chance of me seeing Google ads. But you are using an ad-blocker, you don't see google ads. If you aren't using an ad-blocker then this topic isn't about you.
londons_explore 3y ago
> It is only paying/ad viewers that matters, until they start to lose those they wont care. They prefer you use youtube ad-free than go take the crowd to another platform. Microsoft famously said that they prefer people to pirate Windows than to use Linux/Mac.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Pirating OS users tend to become paying OS users after a while, when they need to perform a job etc. Ad blocking users aren't becoming paying or ad-viewing users, they stay unprofitable forever.
  - alex7734 3y ago
    They stay unprofitable forever individually but they stay on YouTube instead of making another video site popular, which on the whole is better for YouTube.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      But that isn't an as big deal as it sounds. Many use TikTok for example, but TikTok barely pays anything to creators so anyone who gets big on TikTok moves to YouTube to make money. As long as you make the most money at YouTube that will keep happening, and all those ads is why people make so much money making videos on YouTube. This leads to an Apple situation where Apple doesn't have the most users but most of the money goes to them since they can extract much more money per user. It isn't a bad situation to be in.
      - alex7734 3y ago
        I would agree with that if most of the costs of YouTube were paying the creators, but my guess is they're not. If YouTube gives, for example, Vimeo the chance to become big enough and they just happen to be more efficient than YouTube and also decide to pay the creators just a little bit more than YouTube, isn't it even a tiny bit reasonable that maybe Vimeo could gradually replace YouTube in the future? Of course Vimeo would have to fight off adblockers too to compete in money extraction with YouTube but that's not my point, my point is that YouTube now has a monopoly and any actions that threaten that, such as strongarming people into watching 3 preroll unskippable ads, are in my opinion silly and self-defeating. They're just too greedy. If they made the price of YouTube Premium something reasonable ($1 or $2 a month instead of $14 or whatever it is) they would get a lot more subscribers and probably even get more revenue. $1 or $2 is not worth spending even 10 minutes digging in obfuscated JavaScript to fix an adblocker, so this whole thing would go a lot smoother for them if they charged that. Even if $14 is not a lot people just don't want to pay that much.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
I pay for the ad-free versions of Hulu, HBO ("Max"), Disney Plus, and Paramount Plus. YouTube managed to sufficiently tick me off that I refuse to give them one penny.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  Same here. I’ve subscribed to so many different streaming platforms and refuse to pay for Google Premium
baz00 3y ago
What makes you think I give a crap what they care about? This is about what I care about and choose to participate in. I choose to not take the ketchup and not go in McDonald’s. And my life is better for it. Actually I like a McPlant and an apple pie occasionally but that’s another story…
eertami 3y ago
Even if I watch the ad nobody is making any money from it. I'm just saving their bandwidth. But even with the latest 'crackdown', I haven't seen a single advert or nag screen so I guess the crackdown isn't very effective.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  >Even if I watch the ad nobody is making any money from it. What?
tomrod 3y ago
Because they mine my data and could get goodwill marketing from me if they showed they gave a damn. Instead, they've grown too big, they've grown too frail, they've grown too meaningless. So, time to move on.
strken 3y ago
I've paid for content on YouTube before, through Purchases, and I won't do that anymore if there's even a hint they'll try to detect my adblocker in the future. Thing is, I'm not going to pay their excessive and ongoing subscription fee under any circumstances. I watch maybe an hour of videos a week, but all of them are just to kill time, and they're not worth double digits a month to me. I was happy to have a transactional relationship with them for paid content, and they likely made a net profit from me even with an ad blocker, but if I can't trust them to provide ongoing access to the content I bought then I won't buy any more.

butz 3y ago

I'm going same way too. When first speculations about ad-blockers being blocked on Youtube I started investigating alternative video platforms, and reducing video watching overall. Worst thing is that many public services and companies are still using Youtube as single available video repository, not considering that their website or service use instructions end up covered with annoying ads, that are distracting and time consuming.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]