5 ms·

I would much rather wait a few hundred milliseconds for a video to start during the few times I decide to watch an embedded video than to wait for the full vide

by nnf 2y ago

I would much rather wait a few hundred milliseconds for a video to start during the few times I decide to watch an embedded video than to wait for the full video player to load every single time I visit a page with an embedded video that I'm never going to watch. Similarly, I would much rather have every stoplight I approach be green for me rather than having every light be red but for not very long.

vasco 2y ago
These things are not optimized for what we prefer but for what leads us to behave in a way that maximizes a particular metric, for youtube it's global watch time.
- Retric 2y ago
  Global watch time isn’t something non Google website owners care about. Remember, Google benefits from making the web worse.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Do they? They have the biggest browser, an online office suite, a cloud, and a giant ad network. They want to maximize internet use, or they should want to.
    - kibwen 2y ago
      Unfortunately no, Google wants to maximize their profit, and they'll enshittify the web in that pursuit until it collapses. They have Android, they don't need the web to exist.
      - klyrs 2y ago
        > They have Android, they don't need the web to exist. If not for apple, I'd agree.
        FredPret 2y ago
        Apple sells expensive solutions to cash-rich consumers (some of whom are also time-poor) who are willing to throw money at a technical problem (setting up a device with an OS) to make it go away (ie, buying an iPhone, iPad, and Mac). Why would you ever want to advertise to anyone else? No internet = no Google.
      - troupo 2y ago
        > They have Android, they don't need the web to exist. In 2023 77% of Google's money came from online advertising. While the percentage is lower than in 2017 when it was 86%, Google is fully dependent on the web.
    - troupo 2y ago
      Google makes the web better for itself. Which is not the same as making it better for everyone else. After all, 77% of their revenue comes from online ads.
      - FredPret 2y ago
        No users = no clicks = no Google. Their incentive is to strike a balance between profiting off users and driving all the users away. I'm not commenting on whether they're getting it right.
        Retric 2y ago
        The issue is them getting it right is finding a balance point which is maximizing their profits at the expense of the general public. They are willing to make a Web Browser and Android to limit how much people can avoid being tracked etc.
        FredPret 2y ago
        How is it at the expense of the public? We get a free search engine, map, office suite, email, the best browser, and video platform. And while some here will say it’s enshittified beyond hope, it’s just not. Their products are great, I use them every day, and every now and then I click on an ad for something I like.
        clearleaf 2y ago
        If you clicked on an ad ever you're a different sort.
        troupo 2y ago
        > How is it at the expense of the public? "According to the 160-page report, the employees found evidence that Mountain View was demoting its competitors and placing its own services on top of search results lists, even if they weren't as helpful." https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-20-ftc-report-google-search-bias.html https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-20-ftc-report-google-search... Then there's search results which are mostly ads and sponsored listings, not actual search results, and that's deliberate: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ And search results from content farms are prioritized at the expense of actual results: https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/google-promotes-sketchy-product-reviews-from-big-publishers-at-the-expense-of-small-indie-sites-a-small-indie-site-argues/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/google-promotes-sketchy-pr... Ands a decade of AMP hurt the web, and publishers, and sites, and... https://wptavern.com/amp-has-irreparably-damaged-publishers-trust-in-google-led-initiatives https://wptavern.com/amp-has-irreparably-damaged-publishers-...
- moqmar 2y ago
  Also, ads. I guess the shorter the time is between clicking the play button and the ad starting, the more people will have "seen" more of the ad before deciding that the video isn't worth watching the ad.
kylebenzle 2y ago
Did you even try the example? Obviously not. It's closer to 4 seconds difference, PLENTY of time for me and a lot of people to click away. It doesn't help a discussion to ignore the topic at hand, create a straw man just to easily vanquish him. Who are you even talking to here, just yourself?
- cornholio 2y ago
  Sounds like a bug that could most likely be fixed. I don't see any noticeable difference, maybe one or more spins of the throbber, practically instant on all versions. What could possibly youtube be preloading in that 1.2MB that could genuinely and legitimately speed up video play by 4 seconds, and that can't be cached? It just stretches credulity.
  - IX-103 2y ago
    Caching on the web has gotten worse/more difficult recently since browsers (including Chrome and Edge) have started to partition the cache by top level site. This was necessary to keep trackers from using the cache status of a resource for tracking users, but had the side effect of making common resources much less likely to be cached. Which is to say that if it's the first time you load a resource on a page, it most likely is not in cache. Sorry for inconvenience.
bcrl 2y ago
How will Google collect data about every page load then?

by nnf 2y ago

vasco 2y ago

These things are not optimized for what we prefer but for what leads us to behave in a way that maximizes a particular metric, for youtube it's global watch time.

Retric 2y ago
Global watch time isn’t something non Google website owners care about. Remember, Google benefits from making the web worse.
- FredPret 2y ago
  Do they? They have the biggest browser, an online office suite, a cloud, and a giant ad network. They want to maximize internet use, or they should want to.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Unfortunately no, Google wants to maximize their profit, and they'll enshittify the web in that pursuit until it collapses. They have Android, they don't need the web to exist.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      > They have Android, they don't need the web to exist. If not for apple, I'd agree.
      - FredPret 2y ago
        Apple sells expensive solutions to cash-rich consumers (some of whom are also time-poor) who are willing to throw money at a technical problem (setting up a device with an OS) to make it go away (ie, buying an iPhone, iPad, and Mac). Why would you ever want to advertise to anyone else? No internet = no Google.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > They have Android, they don't need the web to exist. In 2023 77% of Google's money came from online advertising. While the percentage is lower than in 2017 when it was 86%, Google is fully dependent on the web.
  - troupo 2y ago
    Google makes the web better for itself. Which is not the same as making it better for everyone else. After all, 77% of their revenue comes from online ads.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      No users = no clicks = no Google. Their incentive is to strike a balance between profiting off users and driving all the users away. I'm not commenting on whether they're getting it right.
      - Retric 2y ago
        The issue is them getting it right is finding a balance point which is maximizing their profits at the expense of the general public. They are willing to make a Web Browser and Android to limit how much people can avoid being tracked etc.
        FredPret 2y ago
        How is it at the expense of the public? We get a free search engine, map, office suite, email, the best browser, and video platform. And while some here will say it’s enshittified beyond hope, it’s just not. Their products are great, I use them every day, and every now and then I click on an ad for something I like.
        clearleaf 2y ago
        If you clicked on an ad ever you're a different sort.
        troupo 2y ago
        > How is it at the expense of the public? "According to the 160-page report, the employees found evidence that Mountain View was demoting its competitors and placing its own services on top of search results lists, even if they weren't as helpful." https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-20-ftc-report-google-search-bias.html https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-20-ftc-report-google-search... Then there's search results which are mostly ads and sponsored listings, not actual search results, and that's deliberate: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ And search results from content farms are prioritized at the expense of actual results: https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/google-promotes-sketchy-product-reviews-from-big-publishers-at-the-expense-of-small-indie-sites-a-small-indie-site-argues/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/google-promotes-sketchy-pr... Ands a decade of AMP hurt the web, and publishers, and sites, and... https://wptavern.com/amp-has-irreparably-damaged-publishers-trust-in-google-led-initiatives https://wptavern.com/amp-has-irreparably-damaged-publishers-...
moqmar 2y ago
Also, ads. I guess the shorter the time is between clicking the play button and the ad starting, the more people will have "seen" more of the ad before deciding that the video isn't worth watching the ad.

kylebenzle 2y ago

Did you even try the example? Obviously not. It's closer to 4 seconds difference, PLENTY of time for me and a lot of people to click away. It doesn't help a discussion to ignore the topic at hand, create a straw man just to easily vanquish him. Who are you even talking to here, just yourself?

cornholio 2y ago
Sounds like a bug that could most likely be fixed. I don't see any noticeable difference, maybe one or more spins of the throbber, practically instant on all versions. What could possibly youtube be preloading in that 1.2MB that could genuinely and legitimately speed up video play by 4 seconds, and that can't be cached? It just stretches credulity.
- IX-103 2y ago
  Caching on the web has gotten worse/more difficult recently since browsers (including Chrome and Edge) have started to partition the cache by top level site. This was necessary to keep trackers from using the cache status of a resource for tracking users, but had the side effect of making common resources much less likely to be cached. Which is to say that if it's the first time you load a resource on a page, it most likely is not in cache. Sorry for inconvenience.

bcrl 2y ago

How will Google collect data about every page load then?