8 ms·

Thanks for posting - Google needs to face serious competition and market penalties for the recent anti-user behavior. I feel that the products that matter at Go

Thanks for posting - Google needs to face serious competition and market penalties for the recent anti-user behavior. I feel that the products that matter at Google are controlled by an extremely distasteful group of people. Looting the users amassed years ago by real innovator engineers. For example, the real implied free storage in GMail has implicitly been reduced by 80%. Their failure to reduce prices and in fact their price INCREASES are just pure greed on display.

tehwebguy 3y ago
OK but now isn't the ask for a competitor who is okay with having like no ad revenue?
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  This is really a lazy take, but I’ll engage. There’s a huge difference between no ads, and unskipable ads shat out every seven minutes, with another two at the start of every video. Television isn’t even this bad.
  - Turneyboy 3y ago
    Television typically runs ~7 minutes of unskippable ads for 23 minutes of content.
Gigachad 3y ago
How would competition even work? How could any company succeed proving a product to a user base that doesn’t watch ads and doesn’t pay for the service? Would be like proving an alternative to cater to shoplifters.
- ath3nd 3y ago
  What you wrote is like: "Hey fellow hackers. I am a hacker myself and I totally don't work for Google. Ads are good, mkay?" Bruh, dunno what planet you live on and how brainwashed you have to be to think blocking ads is theft. It's like getting a fine when there are ads on the radio and you change the station, or ads on the TV and you changing the channel. It's your device, it's the creator's content, and Youtube facilitates you seeing that content. In return, they can (and very much do) monetize your usage data, your interests, etc, and give some of that value to the creator. That should have been the relationship between creator, service and consumer. However, monetizing the trove of data they have on you is not enough for them. What they are doing now is motivated by pure corporate greed and desire to squeeze every possible cent out of their dominant position. They can and don't care about your experience, knowing that there is hardly an alternative for you, and that, my friend, is called a monopoly. And wherever there are monopolies, users suffer. So don't sell me the idea that poor poor Google can't make ends meet and need to force feed me 100 ads during one video so they can survive. This is a monopoly saying a big "fuck you" to their users and trying to scalp them by enshittifying their service and forcing you to pay for the "premium". Forcing you to watch content that you didn't want to and pausing the ad counter while you have clicked away is the TV equivalent of the ADs following you on every channel and not relenting until you have watched them. They have no excuse
  - jsnell 3y ago
    > However, monetizing the trove of data they have on you is not enough for them. How do you think they're monetizing your data? By definition it's not by showing you ads, you're blocking them. Also not by using the data to make their paid service so good that you'll really want to subscribe, since you obviously are entitled to the service for free. The reality is that your data is worthless, and your use of the service is a liability rather than an asset. And you'll be equally worthless to any competitor, which was the GP's actual point.
    - ath3nd 3y ago
      > The reality is that your data is worthless, and your use of the service is a liability rather than an asset. And you'll be equally worthless to any competitor, which was the GP's actual point. I disagree. Bulk usage data is a type of platform moderation which makes certain content more or less popular, and it improves the quality of the platform overall when fed into their algorithms. That's how google search is made as well. That rises the number of users to the platform. Out of that number, some don't mind paying for it, and some don't mind being tracked/showed ads. In a nutshell, mine and your usage usage/engagement, regardless if we block ads or not, helped them improve heir platform, which resulted in increase in paying users.
- angoragoats 3y ago
  Your stealing analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft. When you're listening to the radio, it's not theft to change the station when ads come up. When you're watching TV, it's not theft to mute the TV and get a drink when ads come up. Youtube has zero moral expectation that people will actually watch the ads it serves. They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft. So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth? The terms of service for YT are: watch ads or pay for premium. This is so that YT can pay their bills (hosting, salaries, cheques to creators). > They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story. No they are not. They are providing a service according to certain terms of service. If you don't like the terms feel free not to use the service.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      I for one have never seen the YouTube terms of service, nor been prompted to agree to them.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      > So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth? > If you don't like the terms feel free not to use the service. If it's unauthorized, why is the server responding with that data? Youtube has a very simple solution if they don't want the data they send to you to be modified at your discretion -- don't send the data. Their servers are perfectly free to respond with some kind of HTTP error code and not serve up the video data. Once they've sent me the bytes, their control over which of said bytes I consume, modify or discard is over. I never agreed to any terms of service. My browser made a request and their servers responded with some data. If my request alone constitutes accepting a terms of service, I too should be free to include some sort of X-ToS header with my requests that impose similarly onerous terms on the operator of the server I am making the request to, provided they respond with a non-error HTTP code. Like, lets say, for every Youtube video I load, Youtube must provide a full-ride college scholarship to 1000 kids.
- treyd 3y ago
  Simply find an alternative model. Billboards still exist even though people that don't speak the language they're written in might see them. You can't force people to view things they don't want to, that's a torture technique.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  "The government should pay people to make videos and then distribute them for free" in 3...2...1...
  - Johnythree 3y ago
    Many countries have Public Service Broadcasting. In Australia there is ABC, SBS, Community Broadcasting Foundation, Channel 31, etc,
- oldkinglog 3y ago
  You assume the competition needs to be commercial, but P2P video sharing has been around for a long time. Folks contribute bandwidth for altruistic reasons.
culopatin 3y ago
Well it’s up to the users to pick something else if they don’t like it. Why don’t we all use Vimeo for example? They are an ad company, their plan was to lure and lock users. They are not the only company using that tactic. Any subscription based service is the same way, or worse because you are tied to the content by paying. For example PS plus. You spend time in the service and then your subscription runs out and you can’t access or even fully use games you paid for. What makes google different? Why do users endure the pain?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
carlosjobim 3y ago
Who else except for YouTube pays independent creators? Who else gives a chance to people who are not born into the right connections and families? YouTube at least gives people a chance to reach an audience on their own merits, just as Google search does. YouTube does have large problems, but in the end it is a payment and distribution layer between video creators and their audience.
disiplus 3y ago
I have been paying for YouTube premium for years now. And they are spamming the shorts feature with almost no way to turn it off on mobile or ignore it anymore. They are pushing me to stop paying for premium. Are they this stupid.

tehwebguy 3y ago

OK but now isn't the ask for a competitor who is okay with having like no ad revenue?

jonathankoren 3y ago
This is really a lazy take, but I’ll engage. There’s a huge difference between no ads, and unskipable ads shat out every seven minutes, with another two at the start of every video. Television isn’t even this bad.
- Turneyboy 3y ago
  Television typically runs ~7 minutes of unskippable ads for 23 minutes of content.

Gigachad 3y ago

How would competition even work? How could any company succeed proving a product to a user base that doesn’t watch ads and doesn’t pay for the service? Would be like proving an alternative to cater to shoplifters.

ath3nd 3y ago
What you wrote is like: "Hey fellow hackers. I am a hacker myself and I totally don't work for Google. Ads are good, mkay?" Bruh, dunno what planet you live on and how brainwashed you have to be to think blocking ads is theft. It's like getting a fine when there are ads on the radio and you change the station, or ads on the TV and you changing the channel. It's your device, it's the creator's content, and Youtube facilitates you seeing that content. In return, they can (and very much do) monetize your usage data, your interests, etc, and give some of that value to the creator. That should have been the relationship between creator, service and consumer. However, monetizing the trove of data they have on you is not enough for them. What they are doing now is motivated by pure corporate greed and desire to squeeze every possible cent out of their dominant position. They can and don't care about your experience, knowing that there is hardly an alternative for you, and that, my friend, is called a monopoly. And wherever there are monopolies, users suffer. So don't sell me the idea that poor poor Google can't make ends meet and need to force feed me 100 ads during one video so they can survive. This is a monopoly saying a big "fuck you" to their users and trying to scalp them by enshittifying their service and forcing you to pay for the "premium". Forcing you to watch content that you didn't want to and pausing the ad counter while you have clicked away is the TV equivalent of the ADs following you on every channel and not relenting until you have watched them. They have no excuse
- jsnell 3y ago
  > However, monetizing the trove of data they have on you is not enough for them. How do you think they're monetizing your data? By definition it's not by showing you ads, you're blocking them. Also not by using the data to make their paid service so good that you'll really want to subscribe, since you obviously are entitled to the service for free. The reality is that your data is worthless, and your use of the service is a liability rather than an asset. And you'll be equally worthless to any competitor, which was the GP's actual point.
  - ath3nd 3y ago
    > The reality is that your data is worthless, and your use of the service is a liability rather than an asset. And you'll be equally worthless to any competitor, which was the GP's actual point. I disagree. Bulk usage data is a type of platform moderation which makes certain content more or less popular, and it improves the quality of the platform overall when fed into their algorithms. That's how google search is made as well. That rises the number of users to the platform. Out of that number, some don't mind paying for it, and some don't mind being tracked/showed ads. In a nutshell, mine and your usage usage/engagement, regardless if we block ads or not, helped them improve heir platform, which resulted in increase in paying users.
angoragoats 3y ago
Your stealing analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
kibwen 3y ago
Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft. When you're listening to the radio, it's not theft to change the station when ads come up. When you're watching TV, it's not theft to mute the TV and get a drink when ads come up. Youtube has zero moral expectation that people will actually watch the ads it serves. They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft. So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth? The terms of service for YT are: watch ads or pay for premium. This is so that YT can pay their bills (hosting, salaries, cheques to creators). > They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story. No they are not. They are providing a service according to certain terms of service. If you don't like the terms feel free not to use the service.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    I for one have never seen the YouTube terms of service, nor been prompted to agree to them.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    > So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth? > If you don't like the terms feel free not to use the service. If it's unauthorized, why is the server responding with that data? Youtube has a very simple solution if they don't want the data they send to you to be modified at your discretion -- don't send the data. Their servers are perfectly free to respond with some kind of HTTP error code and not serve up the video data. Once they've sent me the bytes, their control over which of said bytes I consume, modify or discard is over. I never agreed to any terms of service. My browser made a request and their servers responded with some data. If my request alone constitutes accepting a terms of service, I too should be free to include some sort of X-ToS header with my requests that impose similarly onerous terms on the operator of the server I am making the request to, provided they respond with a non-error HTTP code. Like, lets say, for every Youtube video I load, Youtube must provide a full-ride college scholarship to 1000 kids.
treyd 3y ago
Simply find an alternative model. Billboards still exist even though people that don't speak the language they're written in might see them. You can't force people to view things they don't want to, that's a torture technique.
carlosjobim 3y ago
"The government should pay people to make videos and then distribute them for free" in 3...2...1...
- Johnythree 3y ago
  Many countries have Public Service Broadcasting. In Australia there is ABC, SBS, Community Broadcasting Foundation, Channel 31, etc,
oldkinglog 3y ago
You assume the competition needs to be commercial, but P2P video sharing has been around for a long time. Folks contribute bandwidth for altruistic reasons.

culopatin 3y ago

Well it’s up to the users to pick something else if they don’t like it. Why don’t we all use Vimeo for example? They are an ad company, their plan was to lure and lock users. They are not the only company using that tactic. Any subscription based service is the same way, or worse because you are tied to the content by paying. For example PS plus. You spend time in the service and then your subscription runs out and you can’t access or even fully use games you paid for. What makes google different? Why do users endure the pain?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

carlosjobim 3y ago

Who else except for YouTube pays independent creators? Who else gives a chance to people who are not born into the right connections and families? YouTube at least gives people a chance to reach an audience on their own merits, just as Google search does. YouTube does have large problems, but in the end it is a payment and distribution layer between video creators and their audience.

disiplus 3y ago

I have been paying for YouTube premium for years now. And they are spamming the shorts feature with almost no way to turn it off on mobile or ignore it anymore. They are pushing me to stop paying for premium. Are they this stupid.