The problem with annoying ads aren't even done - YouTube will experiment with audio advertisements during background playback

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

...not on the official app...

the non official app is designed to circumvent ads anyway, your point makes no sense.  

[Dracarris]

On 11/21/2020 at 2:33 AM, poochyena said:

yes

youtube and twitter are both video sharing social media websites. How are they not competition? They both fight for the same user base.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Every single one of those platforms you have listed does not even have video as their main service. Plus the way you browse and watch videos works completely different. Not to mention the type and quality of content.

 

Dont get me started on Twitch, with their utterly stupid concept of videos only being visible a limited amount of time after streaming, if at all.

 

The only similar platform to YT is Vimeo, and go figure where that one stands.

[RejZoR]

Literally only reason I still bother with Youtube is because of content like LTT. I don't even mind how Linus always sneaks ads into the video. But I absolutely and totally hate when you're watching something and bam, it slams an ad at much higher volume right in your face when you're not expecting it. Or wanting it. With LTT videos you know it's one in the beginning and one at the end. And they sort of contextually throw in LTT store ads. Don't mind it. But Youtube ads have always been so damn annoying I just can't stand them at all.

[poochyena]

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Every single one of those platforms you have listed does not even have video as their main service.

I never said they did though.

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Plus the way you browse and watch videos works completely different. Not to mention the type and quality of content.

i never said otherwise.

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

The only similar platform to YT

i never made any mention of platforms similar to YT, i said platform that compete with YT.

[Dracarris]

7 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I never said they did though.

i never said otherwise.

well then, for absolutely obvious reasons, they do not compete with YT. People go there for a reason - because what I described, is currently only found at YT.

[poochyena]

10 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

People go there for a reason - because what I described, is currently only found at YT.

Either those platforms made some dramatic changes over the past 10 minutes, or you can, indeed, still view and share video on all those websites. Unless you want to suggest that no one has ever uploaded, viewed, or shared a video on any of those platforms, then i don't see how you can say they don't compete.

[Dracarris]

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Either those platforms made some dramatic changes over the past 10 minutes, or you can, indeed, still view and share video on all those websites. Unless you want to suggest that no one has ever uploaded, viewed, or shared a video on any of those platforms, then i don't see how you can say they don't compete.

Let me get this straight. You say this, but then this:

28 minutes ago, poochyena said:

i never said otherwise.

In response to my saying

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Plus the way you browse and watch videos works completely different. Not to mention the type and quality of content.

Are you trolling me?

 

Simply because a platform allows to upload and share videos in some form, does not mean it can compete with YT. Not even closely, not at all. Being YT and being able to share some videos are different universes.

 

[poochyena]

1 minute ago, Dracarris said:

Simply because a platform allows to upload and share videos in some form, does not mean it can compete with YT.

The wan show is streamed on youtube and twitch. You can not (reasonably) watch the livestream on both platforms, so you have to pick one. Because of this, those two platforms are competing.

[Dracarris]

17 minutes ago, poochyena said:

The wan show is streamed on youtube and twitch. You can not (reasonably) watch the livestream on both platforms, so you have to pick one. Because of this, those two platforms are competing.

That is for life streams only, a very small fraction of the content on YT.

 

What happened to "They are all competing with YT, because in some shape or form you can upload videos"?

[poochyena]

9 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

That is for life streams only, a very small fraction of the content on YT.

So you understand that they compete?

 

10 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

What happened to "They are all competing with YT, because in some shape or form you can upload videos"?

thats what we are discussing right now

[Dracarris]

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

So you understand that they compete?

For streaming, yes. For the regular form of YT content: Not at all. As I already said even if twitch would get 100% of streaming and YT nothing, that would do jack shit to YT because streaming is quite meaningless for YT.

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

thats what we are discussing right now

I already answered that this is just completely wrong:

36 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Simply because a platform allows to upload and share videos in some form, does not mean it can compete with YT. Not even closely, not at all. Being YT and being able to share some videos are different universes.

 

[poochyena]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

For streaming, yes. But as I already said even if twitch would get 100% of streaming and YT nothing, that would do jack shit to YT because streaming is quite meaningless for YT.

Are you saying YT doesn't care about people choosing to stream and watch stream on twitch rather than youtube? Then why did they create https://www.youtube.com/gaming

 

4 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I already answered that this is just completely wrong:

You seem to be arguing that these companies don't compete because they are different, which makes no sense because that how companies compete against each other, by being different.

[Dracarris]

3 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Are you saying YT doesn't care about people choosing to stream and watch stream on twitch rather than youtube? Then why did they create https://www.youtube.com/gaming

They care, but people mostly stayed on twitch. So YT with all its size and power that it has today has zero dependence from streamers. They can all stop streaming today to YT and it would do absolutely nothing to the power and influence of YT.

 

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

You seem to be arguing that these companies don't compete because they are different, which makes no sense because that how companies compete against each other, by being different.

You have to offer the same type of service and user experience in order to compete. The only platforms that meet these criteria in relation to YT are Vimeo and Floatplane.

[poochyena]

Just now, Dracarris said:

zero dependence

what? We are talking about the companies competing, not about if YT "depends" on streamers.

1 minute ago, Dracarris said:

They can all stop streaming today to YT and it would do absolutely nothing to the power and influence of YT.

ok? What does power and influence have to do with anything? They are still competing.

 

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

You have to offer the same type of service and user experience in order to compete.

what? Where is this logic coming from? services and user experience don't have to be anything alike what so ever for it to be competition.

 

8 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

The only platforms that meet these criteria in relation to YT are Vimeo and Floatplane.

literally how? YT is an open social media platform where people can watch, upload, and share videos for free. That doesn't describe vimeo or floatplane at all. floatplane is a netflix competitor. They are in the subscription video content category. When it comes to being able to watch, stream, upload, and share video content for free, YT has a LOT of competition.

[Dracarris]

3 minutes ago, poochyena said:

what? Where is this logic coming from? services and user experience don't have to be anything alike what so ever for it to be competition.

Your logic is simply flawed, it makes no sense continuing this discussion with you. A car company cannot compete with a bicycle company. You have to at least offer the same product type in order to compete. If you do not understand this, I'll leave it here.

[poochyena]

1 minute ago, Dracarris said:

A car company cannot compete with a bicycle company.

I didn't say they could. If you want to use an analogy, would you not say that car companies competed with horse and carriage companies in the early 1900s? Well, I guess you wouldn't since they are different and apparently different means they don't compete. Curious how you'd explain the decline in horse and carriage companies.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

I didn't say they could. If you want to use an analogy, would you not say that car companies competed with horse and carriage companies in the early 1900s? Well, I guess you wouldn't since they are different and apparently different means they don't compete. Curious how you'd explain the decline in horse and carriage companies.

Let’s go at this one a different way:

 

you say YT has a lot of competition. Who?

 

as to the carriage thing I would not say so.  Carriage companies actually worked for car companies. That’s why the parts of a car you can see are called the carriage work.  The way it used to be is companies made rolling frames and the carriage company would build the doors and seats and whatnot.  The model T was up to that time something an anomaly because Ford did its own carriage work.  They sold rolling stock though. Still do. Unibody construction wasn’t even invented till the 30’s. The first unibody car was called the hardbody. The guy who invented the concept went off to form his own car company (which failed) body and frame construction is a legacy of carriage work.  This is still the case for some trucks.  Car companies do not make fire trucks for example, yet they still exist. Fire engine companies do, and in a few cases they are the same companies that Made them when they were pulled by horses.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Bombastinator

[poochyena]

16 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Carriage companies

I said horse and carriage companies, not carriage companies. Do you not think companies that sold horse and carriage lost customers to companies selling cars?

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I said horse and carriage companies, not carriage companies. Do you not think companies that sold horse and carriage lost customers to companies selling cars?

There are horses and carriages.  Hence the phrase “horse and carriage” They did not come as a unit.  Carriages come out of carriageworks factories.  Horses come out of other horses.  There were carriage companies  that did carriage work for auto companies and ones that didn’t. Most of the ones that didn’t did not survive.  Even most of the ones that did did not survive.  Some did.  One of them made high end handbags and recently did work for Bughatti the same way they used to. 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Bombastinator

[poochyena]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

There are horses and carriages.  Hence the phrase “horse and carriage” They did not come as a unit.  Carriages come out of carriageworks factories.  Horses come out of other horses. 

do ya not think there were companies selling horses?

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

do ya not think there were companies selling horses?

To be sure. Perhaps sometimes even the same companies. Most often not.  The method of manufacture is wildly different.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Bombastinator

[xtroria]

It should be fine, as long as it doesnt go to the point of being obnoxious

 

After all, YT is a free platform but it’s not free to maintain the infrastructure

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, xtroria said:

It should be fine, as long as it doesnt go to the point of being obnoxious

 

After all, YT is a free platform but it’s not free to maintain the infrastructure

The worry is it may have already done that.  Atm I have more or less given up on the possibility of watching a video all the way through even with ads.  The video invariably eventually breaks a few seconds after a set of ads play.  There seems to be a workaround of hitting not the center red button which doesn’t work but the small black play button in the corner which sometimes works.  None the less it’s enough of a pain that long videos have become in viewable in their entirety.  I’ve had to give up on several.  It’s been getting better. I am still hopeful YT can work out the bugs, but it is possible long videos have become impossible to watch.

[xtroria]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

The worry is it may have already done that.  Atm I have more or less given up on the possibility of watching a video all the way through even with ads.  The video invariably eventually breaks a few seconds after a set of ads play.  There seems to be a workaround of hitting not the center red button which doesn’t work but the small black play button in the corner which sometimes works.  None the less it’s enough of a pain that long videos have become in viewable in their entirety.  I’ve had to give up on several.  It’s been getting better. I am still hopeful YT can work out the bugs, but it is possible long videos have become impossible to watch.

If google goes too far, i could see amazon pouncing on this, since they have the infrastructure to make something at YT scale if they so wish

[dizmo]

This is surprising why? Google is an ad company. This is what they do. Provide ads. 

As more people are stuck at home consuming content, it only makes sense to ramp up any ad delivery mechanisms they have.

That's also why they've been playing around with the home page, and why we now see 15 second unskippable ads.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 2:24 PM, poochyena said:

I'm surprised they are still pushing ads hard and not going for, what I'd imagine to be, more profitable ventures like pushing youtube premium and super chats.

facebook/instagram, twitter, tiktok, and twitch are all major competitors.

I'm surprised they charge so much for YouTube Premium. I wonder what it'd be like if they charged half the amount. I'd gladly pay $6/month, but $12/month seems like a lot more (even though in reality it's really not much at all). I'd imagine they did the math and that's where it makes sense vs just having ads displayed.

On 11/21/2020 at 3:43 AM, Trik'Stari said:

This'll do it.

 

I will 100% drop Youtube if they put ads in that can't be overcome by adblock.

The only person you'll be hurting is yourself. They really don't care.