4 ms·

I remember when everyone was wishing they could just pay their own ad revenue in money and not have to see any ads.

jkaplowitz 1y ago
Google actually offered something along those lines for a few years, called Google Contributor, though I don’t think it applied to video ads like YouTube’s. I have no inside info on why it didn’t survive even though I worked for Google when it initially launched (not on Contributor), but the fact remains it didn’t survive. As pure personal speculation, I suspect it didn’t receive enough user uptake for Google to decide that it was worthwhile. To avoid any confusion: I don’t work for Google now and am certainly not speaking for them in this comment.
- silisili 1y ago
  You worked there and don't really know much about it. How in the world would Google expect anyone else to have known about it? I personally don't remember such a thing ever existing. So assuming they did try it, I'd say it died from lack of awareness rather than people just didn't want it.
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    I knew a bit about it at the time (nothing confidential that I remember now), and saw both internal discussions and external media reports about it at the time. Wikipedia continues to document that it did exist. But sure, I don’t think it was very well publicized. I will say that Google has generally been bad at product decisions and execution, such as genuinely understanding what their customers and users want or need and effectively giving that to them in a logistically and commercially viable way, more often than they’ve been good at product decisions and execution. (Engineering quality and technical innovation are completely separate questions, and ones at which Google has historically been excellent.) It’s very possible that better product decisions or better execution could have made Contributor a success.
- hedora 1y ago
  I’d pay to get them to stop tracking me. There’s no way to implement that without tracking me, so I just go with anyone but Google whenever possible. The fact that Google has been intentionally making their products worse to enable price gouging (as proven in court) has made it easy for competitors to outperform all of Google’s offerings (except, arguably, YouTube, but that seems pretty moatless / prone to piracy).
  - ranger_danger 1y ago
    > There’s no way to implement that without tracking me Monero.
    - immibis 1y ago
      maximum transactions per second?
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  The version that outbid ads was unreliable and not how I want an ad-replacement to work, and then the later version worked on a tiny tiny list of sites. So even when it existed, I just lamented it didn't work like youtube red. And that's in addition to them not telling people about it.
Dylan16807 1y ago
Some people want something like that, other people just want ads to not be terrible. And that desire can vary per-service.
barbazoo 1y ago
Isn’t that what premium does? Or do they have ads?
- immibis 1y ago
  That's what premium does. Now that premium exists and is a solution to this problem, the one we specifically wanted, we still complain about the problem instead.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Nonsense. Premium does not stop Youtube from insisting that the people I have been watching and following for 20 years can't say "Fuck". Premium does not stop Youtube from capriciously de"monetizing" a compilation video made up explicitly of videos uploaded to the platform that are all monetized for two years in a row despite explicit support from a youtube account manager that it wouldn't happen again. Premium does not stop youtube from shoving shorts in my face, and giving me no option but "Show less". Premium does not stop youtube putting puritan morals into their terms of service. Premium does not stop youtube from blocking your videos if they contain genuine war footage of historical interest and importance and that you could easily see on daytime news channels. Paying youtube only rewards them for all this bullshit, and also they will turn around and use that money, not to become a great platform for mid-level groups and teams doing good work and making meaningful science or history contributions, but to mint more Logan and Jake Pauls, to support more Lunchly's, to benefit more assholes. Because that's more profitable even if people pay money directly instead of through advertising.
    - barbazoo 1y ago
      > Paying youtube only rewards them for all this bullshit Paying for YT premium removes ads, that's the exchange here. If one doesn't agree with the content the platform provides, one has to find another platform, there are lots out there. They all have different rules.

Google actually offered something along those lines for a few years, called Google Contributor, though I don’t think it applied to video ads like YouTube’s. I have no inside info on why it didn’t survive even though I worked for Google when it initially launched (not on Contributor), but the fact remains it didn’t survive. As pure personal speculation, I suspect it didn’t receive enough user uptake for Google to decide that it was worthwhile. To avoid any confusion: I don’t work for Google now and am certainly not speaking for them in this comment.

silisili 1y ago
You worked there and don't really know much about it. How in the world would Google expect anyone else to have known about it? I personally don't remember such a thing ever existing. So assuming they did try it, I'd say it died from lack of awareness rather than people just didn't want it.
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  I knew a bit about it at the time (nothing confidential that I remember now), and saw both internal discussions and external media reports about it at the time. Wikipedia continues to document that it did exist. But sure, I don’t think it was very well publicized. I will say that Google has generally been bad at product decisions and execution, such as genuinely understanding what their customers and users want or need and effectively giving that to them in a logistically and commercially viable way, more often than they’ve been good at product decisions and execution. (Engineering quality and technical innovation are completely separate questions, and ones at which Google has historically been excellent.) It’s very possible that better product decisions or better execution could have made Contributor a success.
hedora 1y ago
I’d pay to get them to stop tracking me. There’s no way to implement that without tracking me, so I just go with anyone but Google whenever possible. The fact that Google has been intentionally making their products worse to enable price gouging (as proven in court) has made it easy for competitors to outperform all of Google’s offerings (except, arguably, YouTube, but that seems pretty moatless / prone to piracy).
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  > There’s no way to implement that without tracking me Monero.
  - immibis 1y ago
    maximum transactions per second?
Dylan16807 1y ago
The version that outbid ads was unreliable and not how I want an ad-replacement to work, and then the later version worked on a tiny tiny list of sites. So even when it existed, I just lamented it didn't work like youtube red. And that's in addition to them not telling people about it.

Dylan16807 1y ago

Some people want something like that, other people just want ads to not be terrible. And that desire can vary per-service.

barbazoo 1y ago

Isn’t that what premium does? Or do they have ads?

immibis 1y ago
That's what premium does. Now that premium exists and is a solution to this problem, the one we specifically wanted, we still complain about the problem instead.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Nonsense. Premium does not stop Youtube from insisting that the people I have been watching and following for 20 years can't say "Fuck". Premium does not stop Youtube from capriciously de"monetizing" a compilation video made up explicitly of videos uploaded to the platform that are all monetized for two years in a row despite explicit support from a youtube account manager that it wouldn't happen again. Premium does not stop youtube from shoving shorts in my face, and giving me no option but "Show less". Premium does not stop youtube putting puritan morals into their terms of service. Premium does not stop youtube from blocking your videos if they contain genuine war footage of historical interest and importance and that you could easily see on daytime news channels. Paying youtube only rewards them for all this bullshit, and also they will turn around and use that money, not to become a great platform for mid-level groups and teams doing good work and making meaningful science or history contributions, but to mint more Logan and Jake Pauls, to support more Lunchly's, to benefit more assholes. Because that's more profitable even if people pay money directly instead of through advertising.
  - barbazoo 1y ago
    > Paying youtube only rewards them for all this bullshit Paying for YT premium removes ads, that's the exchange here. If one doesn't agree with the content the platform provides, one has to find another platform, there are lots out there. They all have different rules.