Ad injection is making YouTube almost unwatchable

[Forbidden Wafer]

On 9/11/2024 at 6:45 PM, Real_Smoky said:

YouTube ad injection now injects two ads on my end, and often they are not 15 seconds, but 1 minute. I've had 2-3 minute ads, as well.

When I lived with my bros, I blocked all the ads, my brothers no. One of them used to get the 2-3 minute ads on Chrome. My other brother used Dissenter browser, and no kidding, he would get 15 minute ads. I'd suggest trying to switch browsers, or blocking ads altogether.

[Lurking]

53 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Last I checked Google is getting hammered by the DOJ because they think Google is a monopoly. 

You know what MONO in monopoly stands for? 

 

DOJ is a political entity. They go after companies for a variety of reasons. I use scientific definitions. You could use Apple/Bing/Microsoft for everything and never use a Google product in your life.

 

Even that judge (or DOJ person?) said Google has the best search. So they basically blame Google for having made a great product that is popular. Lol. 

 

My water and electricity and mail come from monopolies. And as long as I have a home, I'm legally required to use them (even if I decided to not need electricity). None of those entities got successful due to outstanding service - people just don't have a choice. Where is the DOJ for that? For Google, people jump ship as soon as they are not happy anymore.

[Stahlmann]

14 hours ago, Lurking said:

I suggest people look up the definition of monopoly. 

 

YT may be the largest player, but are not a monopoly. 

 

And as close to a monopoly as they seem to be, it could be broken by a better player. It isn't a monopoly by government (like postal service), or a monopoly by regulation (like most water utilities)... if it was a monopoly, it would be one by market forces. And that type can be broken by a better player (unlike the ones by government and regulation). and again, YT isn't a monopoly to begin with. There are other players. Same way Google doesn't have the search monopoly (it just happens to be the largest and best one - but not the only one)

You can be a monopoly even if you have active competitors. It's all about market share and how much influence you have on the market. By that definition, both YouTube and Google are monopolies. And by the way, companies can be sued for monopolistic behavior even if they're not technically a monopoly. It just seems that YouTube has some sort of guardian angel.

 

Monopolies also aren't tied to products or services that are necessary to live. As long as you have a firm grasp on the market and you actively use that grasp to hurt customers, you can be sued or broken up by the government.

[emothxughts]

21 hours ago, emothxughts said:

I'm using 2 solutions actually right now. Firefox + uBlock Origin on PC, Revanced on Android.

Android phones that is. For smart TVs running on Android, none of these works. Either pay for YT Premium (ewww ) or figure out how to run Pi-Hole, heard one can use any cheap old laptop hooked to the router for this, but the specifics elude me.

[Lurking]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

You can be a monopoly even if you have active competitors. It's all about market share and how much influence you have on the market. By that definition, both YouTube and Google are monopolies. And by the way, companies can be sued for monopolistic behavior even if they're not technically a monopoly. It just seems that YouTube has some sort of guardian angel.

 

Monopolies also aren't tied to products or services that are necessary to live. As long as you have a firm grasp on the market and you actively use that grasp to hurt customers, you can be sued or broken up by the government.

Your own made-up definition?

 

Being sued means nothing. If there is an issue, everyone remotely related will be named in the law suit. And those DOJ lawsuits are all about politics, not actual consumer protection. Do you really think if the DOJ wins this lawsuit you get better search for less money? Google basically will be forced to suck as much as the other players to "even the playing field". DOJ winning will NOT mean that the other players all of sudden also provide good products. 

 

I still remember the internet before Google. I don't know if it sucked, because I didn't know it well. Because before good search engines you had to "know" an URL, or rely on portals like Yahoo. 

 

The actual definition includes the terms EXCLUSIVE and ONE PARTY. Google/YT are not monopolies. You can get similar services from other companies. And those services aren't even necessary for life (unlike my monopoly water utility). and you are not legally forced to subscribe (unlike my monopoly electric utility). If you want, you can subscribe to a million streaming services, OS and you can use other search engines, email and whatnot from non-Google parties. No one is compelled to use Google. There are other choices, it just happens they often suck. But that isn't Google's fault. I bet there are people living in the Apple ecosystem that live Google free, but still participate in the modern World. 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

 

monopoly

noun

mo·nop·o·ly mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē 

 

pluralmonopolies

1

: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

 

2

: exclusive possession or control

no country has a monopoly on morality or truth—Helen M. Lynd

 

 

3

: a commodity controlled by one party

had a monopoly on flint from their quarries—Barbara A. Leitch

 

 

4

: one that has a monopoly

The government passed laws intended to break up monopolies.

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

Your own made-up definition?

Full disclosure I don't know about the legal stuff, and even that might differ vastly between US and EU (where I'm based). So yeah, it's basically my own definition.

 

But AFAIK, as soon as a company gets to a position where they alone have >50% share in their respective market, they can be classified as a monopoly. And this isn't purely dependant on market share, but also on the companies behaviour and a bunch of other factors.

 

YouTube is sitting around 78% market share, and when looking at their anti-consumer actions over the last years, like removal of the dislike button, increasingly aggressive monetization, etc., effectively making the service worse on purpose while increasing monetization, I'd say they can for sure be classified as a monopoly. And the only reason they aren't is because of their guardian angels in the form of lobbyism.

 

Again, a company can become a monopoly in their respective market even without selling essential products (such as food or water).

 

What you describe is an absolute monopoly. But that isn't the only form. Having a monopoly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

The actual definition includes the terms EXCLUSIVE and ONE PARTY.

Convenient way of defining monopolies in a way that makes them impossible. If this were our metric then as long as there's even a single other video hosting service, no matter how small or how few users it services or even how comparable it is to youtube, we wouldn't be able to call it a monopoly. A dictionary definition isn't the same as a legal or technical definition.

[Lurking]

52 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Convenient way of defining monopolies in a way that makes them impossible. If this were our metric then as long as there's even a single other video hosting service, no matter how small or how few users it services or even how comparable it is to youtube, we wouldn't be able to call it a monopoly. A dictionary definition isn't the same as a legal or technical definition.

I think "quasi" monopoly would describe one player having a large market share. A true monopoly is possible. In a free market the first-mover has a monopoly until competition catches up. For example, If I invented the car, I have a monopoly until the second company also builds cars. But me being the only car maker only gives me a monopoly for cars, not for transportation.

 

Or a monopoly by government or by regulation. Those usually are 100% market share monopolies.

 

Youtube has a huge market share... but only if you consider free videos being the market. if you think the market includes all entertainment with moving pictures, YT is tiny. You can watch movies in theatres, watch regular analog TV, buy cable, satellite TV, buy DVDs, or subscribe to one of the million streaming services. so if the "need" is watching "moving pictures with sound", YT isn't even close to being a quasi monopoly. there even are similar formats (nebula, and dare is say it tik tok) and no competitor is prevented from starting a similar service. 

59 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Full disclosure I don't know about the legal stuff, and even that might differ vastly between US and EU (where I'm based). So yeah, it's basically my own definition.

 

But AFAIK, as soon as a company gets to a position where they alone have >50% share in their respective market, they can be classified as a monopoly. And this isn't purely dependant on market share, but also on the companies behaviour and a bunch of other factors.

 

YouTube is sitting around 78% market share, and when looking at their anti-consumer actions over the last years, like removal of the dislike button, increasingly aggressive monetization, etc., effectively making the service worse on purpose while increasing monetization, I'd say they can for sure be classified as a monopoly. And the only reason they aren't is because of their guardian angels in the form of lobbyism.

 

Again, a company can become a monopoly in their respective market even without selling essential products (such as food or water).

 

What you describe is an absolute monopoly. But that isn't the only form. Having a monopoly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

I think the term MONO means the same in all markets. Are you making up the 50% threshhold or is that an actual legal definition? 

As soon as there is a second meaningful player, it isn't MONO anymore. Which product does Google/YT offer where there is no alternative? The alternative not being as good doesn't mean there isn't one. 

 

And you have to define what the market is. For devices using iOS, Apple has a 100% monopoly. For smart phones and tablets it may have 40% market share. But for all computing needs, it may only have a 5% market share. 

 

What is their 78% market share based on? You say all the Hollywood/Bollywood/Netflix/TikTok/Cable providers/Satellite/ananalog TV/movie theatres only have 22% of the market? Is this based on revenue, or hours of content? YT likely has the most hours of content. But uncle Fred posting a video of playing with cats for two hours hardly is the same market value as a 2-hour Lord of Rings movie. 

[Lurick]

18 minutes ago, Lurking said:

I think "quasi" monoploy would describe one player having a large market share. A true monopoly is possible. In a free market the first-mover has a monopoly until competition catches up. Or a monopoly by government or by regulation. Those usually are 100% market share monopolies.

 

Youtube has a huge market share... but only if you consider free videos being the market. if you think the market includes all entertainment with moving pictures, YT is tiny. You can watch movies in theatres, watch regular analog TV, buy cable, satellite TV, buy DVDs, or subscribe to one of the million streaming services. so if the "need" is watching "moving pictures with sound", YT isn't even close to being a quasi monopoly. there even are similar formats (nebula, and dare is say it tik tok) and no competitor is prevented from starting a similar service. 

I think the term MONO means the same in all markets. Are you making up the 50% threshhold or is that an actual legal definition? 

As soon as there is a second meaningful player, it isn't MONO anymore. 

 

And you have to define what the market is. For devices using iOS, Apple has a 100% monopoly. For smart phones and tablets it may have 40% market share. But for all computing needs, it may only have a 5% market share. 

 

What is their 78% market share based on? You say all the Hollywood/Bollywood/Netflix/TikTok/Cable providers/Satellite/ananalog TV/movie theatres only have 22% of the market? Is this based on revenue, or hours of content? YT likely has the most hours of content. But uncle Fred posting a video of playing with cats for two hours hardly is the same market value as a 2-hour Lord of Rings movie. 

Per US law a monopoly exists when one player places unreasonable restraint on competition in the market:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

[Lurick]

18 hours ago, Lurking said:

You know what MONO in monopoly stands for? 

 

DOJ is a political entity. They go after companies for a variety of reasons. I use scientific definitions. You could use Apple/Bing/Microsoft for everything and never use a Google product in your life.

 

Even that judge (or DOJ person?) said Google has the best search. So they basically blame Google for having made a great product that is popular. Lol. 

 

My water and electricity and mail come from monopolies. And as long as I have a home, I'm legally required to use them (even if I decided to not need electricity). None of those entities got successful due to outstanding service - people just don't have a choice. Where is the DOJ for that? For Google, people jump ship as soon as they are not happy anymore.

You need to learn what a natural monopoly is. They are permitted by the government in that case for a variety of reasons and are heavily subject to regulation to ensure they do not harm the customer.

 

Edit:

Additionally having a good product does not make one a monopoly outright, having a product and then restricting competition and hindering the ability of others to come into the market and/or harming consumers because of lack of choice IS when there is a problem.

[Lurking]

2 minutes ago, Lurick said:

You need to learn what a natural monopoly is. They are permitted by the government in that case for a variety of reasons and are heavily subject to regulation to ensure they do not harm the customer.

 

Edit:

Additionally having a good product does not make one a monopoly outright, having a product and then restricting competition and hindering the ability of others to come into the market and/or harming consumers because of lack of choice IS when there is a problem.

How exactly is Google preventing me from building my own servers and providing a similar or better service? the only way they limit competition is by creating great products. If that is a crime, I'm fine with crimes. By that logic GM also should sue Toyota for building quality cars. 

 

The limitations to do that are on my side. Not them preventing me to do it. Apple/Microsoft and others have very vast resources and market access... if they couldn't provide a better product, maybe it is their incompetence? I doubt Google sent over some gangsters to prevent Apple from creating a decent map, or MS from creating a good search. Their market failure in those categories is their own.

 

Yes, someone providing a good-enough product at a good price can create a monopoly. Especially in small markets. Like a baker in a small village may not get competition unless they truly suck. But in a world wide market, this is highly unlikely. 

 

And you still haven't answered which Google service has no competition. Which type of product are you forced to use that has to be from Google and there is no alternative? People chose what they think is the better product. DOJ or not. I highly doubt the government "helping" will provide better products. 

 

 

 

[Biohazard777]

5 hours ago, emothxughts said:

Android phones that is. For smart TVs running on Android, none of these works. Either pay for YT Premium (ewww ) or figure out how to run Pi-Hole, heard one can use any cheap old laptop hooked to the router for this, but the specifics elude me.

SmartTube works fine on Android TV, for now...

[Lurick]

9 minutes ago, Lurking said:

How exactly is Google preventing me from building my own servers and providing a similar or better service? the only way they limit competition is by creating great products. If that is a crime, I'm fine with crimes. By that logic GM also should sue Toyota for building quality cars. 

 

The limitations to do that are on my side. Not them preventing me to do it. Apple/Microsoft and others have very vast resources and market access... if they couldn't provide a better product, maybe it is their incompetence? I doubt Google sent over some gangsters to prevent Apple from creating a decent map, or MS from creating a good search. Their market failure in those categories is their own.

 

Yes, someone providing a good-enough product at a good price can create a monopoly. Especially in small markets. Like a baker in a small village may not get competition unless they truly suck. But in a world wide market, this is highly unlikely. 

 

And you still haven't answered which Google service has no competition. Which type of product are you forced to use that has to be from Google and there is no alternative? People chose what they think is the better product. DOJ or not. I highly doubt the government "helping" will provide better products. 

 

 

 

WHEN YOU ACTIVELY HINDER COMPETITION OR HARM THE CONSUMER, can you not read?

When you buy up market share and prevent others from emerging in the market and actively seek to ensure they cannot gain a foothold. When you block them from forming partnerships with other companies such as Apple. When you actively buy up competing startups just to shut them down. Google is actively working to prevent competition in the market space.

 

If you cannot fathom how a company with 90% of the ad and search market share actively harms consumers you're delusional. See Microsoft in the 1990s and 2000s with Windows and later Internet Explorer. Just because Apple existed doesn't mean they magically had a "better" product and weren't actively trying to prevent them from gaining market share.

 

Edit:

You can EASILY undercut the competition so they cannot compete and to actively do so to drive them out of the market does qualify.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

The actual definition includes the terms EXCLUSIVE and ONE PARTY. Google/YT are not monopolies. You can get similar services from other companies. And those services aren't even necessary for life (unlike my monopoly water utility). and you are not legally forced to subscribe (unlike my monopoly electric utility). If you want, you can subscribe to a million streaming services, OS and you can use other search engines, email and whatnot from non-Google parties. No one is compelled to use Google. There are other choices, it just happens they often suck. But that isn't Google's fault. I bet there are people living in the Apple ecosystem that live Google free, but still participate in the modern World. 

You know it is kind of ironic that you are going on about made up definitions and stating your own definition when in reality his definition is ACTUALLY closer to what a monopoly in the legal sense is

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly

I know it's the same link as Lurick (I was going to respond when he posted).  Anyways here is a quote from it

Quote

The term “monopoly” is often used to describe instances where there is a single seller of a good in a market. In a legal context, the term monopoly is also used to describe a variety of market conditions that are not monopolies in the truest sense. For instance, the term monopoly may be referring to instances where:

    There are only two sellers of a given good (duopoly)
    There are very few sellers of a given good (oligopoly) 
    There is a single buyer of a given good (monopsony)
    There are only two buyers of a given good (duopsony)
    There are very few buyers of a given good (oligopsony)
    There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)

In essence, the term monopoly may be used any time that a market for a good is controlled by a limited number of actors. 

Now the biggest issue is that it's up to the judge/jury to decide whether or not a company has too much undue influence on the market and if they are using their power in a way that isn't reasonable etc.

 

3 minutes ago, Lurking said:

How exactly is Google preventing me from building my own servers and providing a similar or better service? the only way they limit competition is by creating great products. If that is a crime, I'm fine with crimes. By that logic GM also should sue Toyota for building quality cars. 

Uhm, have you seen Google of recent?

 

First, Google itself was classified as a monopoly by the courts; whether or not I agree or disagree in the consequences of that decision [i.e. Firefox now is in legitimate trouble because of it].

 

Second, Google literally promotes their brand over anything else; giving itself preferential treatment....Google+ where they used anyone with a Google account onto the platform, and the constant pushing people to use it linking YouTube profiles etc.  I think we can all agree that Google+ was not a great product.  It was a product that was shoved down our throats whether we liked it or not.

 

Third, there are some things that are impossible to now fight against YouTube.  YouTube with Google owns the ad space, so it's pretty much impossible to create a proper competitor to YouTube as if you start getting big you will need literally billions a year to start funding yourself and since you don't own the ad revenue space you can't operate it without the extra margins that Google does.  YouTube also has the Google backbone to essentially operate out of as well, so overall YouTube is able to operate at a lower cost than any competitor can [not because of the merits of the product but because it's got the might of Google behind it]

[Lurking]

11 minutes ago, Lurick said:

WHEN YOU ACTIVELY HINDER COMPETITION OR HARM THE CONSUMER, can you not read?

When you buy up market share and prevent others from emerging in the market and actively seek to ensure they cannot gain a foothold. When you block them from forming partnerships with other companies such as Apple. When you actively buy up competing startups just to shut them down. Google is actively working to prevent competition in the market space.

 

If you cannot fathom how a company with 90% of the ad and search market share actively harms consumers you're delusional. See Microsoft in the 1990s and 2000s with Windows and later Internet Explorer. Just because Apple existed doesn't mean they magically had a "better" product and weren't actively trying to prevent them from gaining market share.

 

Edit:

You can EASILY undercut the competition so they cannot compete and to actively do so to drive them out of the market does qualify.

Define undercutting. If the price is lower, but still profitable, they just have a better model. if they sell below cost, they lose money and can't do that for long and the problem will resolve itself. 

 

What specifically has Google done to "prevent others from emerging"? There are others. You keep making those accusations, but what exactly do you claim they did? Are you saying Google bullied Apple (the most valuable company in the World), Microsoft (a huge company that basically cornered most of the PC market), and Amazon (the largest web provider) and forced them not be able to compete? if Google had an agreement with Apple, Apple was free to make other agreements with other companies. They just decided Google was better for Apple (why not sue Apple then? it takes two for a contract). 

 

Ad market share isn't relevant to me. Adblockers. it doesn't matter if I don't see ads from Google, or don't see ads from someone else. And they didn't get 90% market share without providing good services. Is 90% market share even a real number? You have to include all radio and TV, billboards, facebook, and other means of advertisement to define the advertisement market. Selling many 0.1 cent advertisement isn't like running one football commercial. 

 

Tell me exactly where I'm limited in the market due to google. Here the Google products I use:

- Pixel phone (after many Samsung): Hardly a monopoly. And if someone else offers a better phone that matches MY needs, I can easily switch. And it works with all non-google devices.

- Youtube: there are Facebook reels, tik tok, Nebula. and a thousand other video services. Plus regular TV, cable, satellite, DVDs the big HBO et al. I just like the YT content. Someone else may just like Netflix shows better. And it is FREE and without ads. Do you think after the DOJ is successful we will get a better and cheaper service? 

- Search: I actively tried to use Edge and Bing, and duck duck go, and it sucked. How does preventing Google from providing a great search help consumers? 

- Gmail: there are tons of similar options. and even sucky Yahoo and AOL still exist. 

- Keep for personal notes: it is free with no ads, I doubt they get rich with that and there are other options. At work we use MS OneNote, which also is free. 

- Google sheets, docs: it is just nice to have it on all devices. I could use the free MS Office version. I'm sure there are other products. I bet MS has a much bigger share in commercial office products.... 

 

For all these needs, there are alternatives. Either in the Apple/MS universe, or some other players. It just happens many people prefer Google products. 

 

All those lawsuits are just to scare companies into complying with government censorship. They have nothing to do with protecting consumers. I absolutely think Elon musk and his Twitter adventures are ridiculous...but he revealed how the government (both Trump and Biden) "encouraged" media companies to censor certain content with the threat to go after them or change regulations to their disadvantage. If you really think the DOJ just wants to make sure the YT premium membership get $1 cheaper, you are gravely mistaken. Nothing good for consumers will come out of the DOJ wining. if it was up to them, we all still would communicate with written letters. Because that is what we get if the market is not free.

 

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

Or a monopoly by government or by regulation. Those usually are 100% market share monopolies.

But those are legal, whereas there is a type of monopoly that is not legal. Likewise just being the first to market with a product is not illegal, however muscling out your competition - even if you don't completely eliminate them - by abusing your market power is illegal and that is what we're talking about.

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

Youtube has a huge market share... but only if you consider free videos being the market.

Yes, the market is online hosting of user made videos. I guess we could add the qualifier "safe for work" user made videos to be specific since youtube is not a player in online porn.

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

if you think the market includes all entertainment with moving pictures, YT is tiny.

Why not all internet services or all forms of entertainment then, while you're at it? Clearly this isn't what anyone is talking about when they discuss youtube's market. If you want to make (safe for work) videos and have a sizeable audience, youtube is pretty much the only place to be. Likewise if you want to see such videos youtube is the first (and often last) place you look.

51 minutes ago, Lurking said:

How exactly is Google preventing me from building my own servers and providing a similar or better service?

By making it economically unviable for anyone to compete with them, using their superior economic means and their control of other markets like online advertising and online searches.

52 minutes ago, Lurking said:

I'm fine with crimes.

[Lurking]

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

But those are legal, whereas there is a type of monopoly that is not legal. Likewise just being the first to market with a product is not illegal, however muscling out your competition - even if you don't completely eliminate them - by abusing your market power is illegal and that is what we're talking about.

Yes, the market is online hosting of user made videos. I guess we could add the qualifier "safe for work" user made videos to be specific since youtube is not a player in online porn.

Why not all internet services or all forms of entertainment then, while you're at it? Clearly this isn't what anyone is talking about when they discuss youtube's market. If you want to make (safe for work) videos and have a sizeable audience, youtube is pretty much the only place to be. Likewise if you want to see such videos youtube is the first (and often last) place you look.

By making it economically unviable for anyone to compete with them, using their superior economic means and their control of other markets like online advertising and online searches.

How exactly did Google muscle other players? Like did they hold a gun to someone's head? Threaten to kill their children? Any contracts with other companies most likely were reviewed by dozens of lawyers on both sides and both sides knew what they got into. If one of those contracts specifically violates a law, that specific contract would be voided or altered. But you have to proof it, not just accuse. 

 

When Google was founded (in a dorm room by students!), why did the other companies with much more money and market just make a better product? Maybe, but just maybe, Google actually had a better product???? Anyone who knew the Internet before google can attest it enhanced everyone's experience at the expense of the old players like Yahoo.

 

You can define any market to proof someone having huge market share. Toyota basically has a lock on Corollas. But not on cars or transportation. 

 

YT provides education, entertainment, hobbyist information, history and a million other topics. For all those there are other alternatives (like, schools, libraries). User-made isn't a great definition. That implies it is just an average Joe. GN, or LTT sure aren't the same type of user-created, those are professional companies. They could have their own servers (or rent from Amazon) and provide their videos without YT. They just decided YT is better for them. Same way most manufacturers have manuals and other info on YT.  Home Depot reserving a slot on a cable DIY channel isn't different from them posting DIY Home depot videos on YT. 

 

Most channels I subscribe to also are on other platforms. YT likely is the largest for them. But this is like saying if i sell radios in a Brick&mortar store I have to go in a large mall because that is the most popular spot. Probably true, but I also can rent a cheaper place and not get the traffic the mall gets, but pay less rent. The mall doesn't have a monopoly or does something illegal, they just provide a popular spot. Or if I sell online, selling via ebay or amazon may be easier, but I also can have my own online site. 

 

There is an inherent advantage to being first and big for YT. But it doesn't mean automatic profits. They still have to work hard. And they had to get to that point. And they could have ended up as a footnote in history. Many similar startups likely ended up with nothing. No one stopped Microsoft in 1995 from providing a great search and video service. They had more money and resources than the two students who founded Google. How did those two students prevent Microsoft or AOL from competing?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 9/11/2024 at 2:20 PM, Marc Oh said:

Same here. I've used uBlock Origin for years and never had a single ad break in a video.
 

uBlock requieres updates from time to time as Google makes changes to how it serves ads, so it may temporarily not work 100% at a particular point in time. Still, if it is related to the change another user posted, it may be more complicated for them. Don't know whether that's the case for OP, though.

 

 

23 hours ago, saintlouisbagels said:

Perhaps they're a monopoly because video streaming is hard and data-intensive and many streams of revenue are necessary for upkeep, and YouTube also offers the best compensation which also results in more content?

No, they are a monopoly(*) due to vertical integration. The technical side of Youtube is perhaps too complicated to have thousands of participants, but it  can accommodate more than one, especially as they could diversify by providing back-end services to other products (as google does). At the platform level (where ads and subscriptions enter the fray) there's really not much preventing a lot of competition, except for the 3-way (maybe 4-way?) vertical integration Google has (and perhaps also our own dumbness and manipulability). It also sunk a lot of money to achieve this position, and it's not even clear whether it can extract enough monopolistic rents out of it to justify the investment.

 

 

22 hours ago, Lurking said:

And as close to a monopoly as they seem to be, it could be broken by a better player. It isn't a monopoly by government (like postal service), or a monopoly by regulation (like most water utilities)...

Utilities aren't monopolies by regulation, they are monopolies due to the minimum efficient scale being equal or larger than the market size (a.k.a. "natural monopolies"). They are regulated due to being natural monopolies.

 

 

20 hours ago, Lurking said:

You know what MONO in monopoly stands for? 

 

DOJ is a political entity.

 

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Full disclosure I don't know about the legal stuff, and even that might differ vastly between US and EU (where I'm based). So yeah, it's basically my own definition.

 

But AFAIK, as soon as a company gets to a position where they alone have >50% share in their respective market, they can be classified as a monopoly. And this isn't purely dependant on market share, but also on the companies behaviour and a bunch of other factors.

You are all getting carried away by the wrong discussion. Anti-trust laws, competition laws, anti-monopoly laws, all refer to "monopolies" as extreme cases but ultimately what matters and is scrutinized most of the time is the "dominant market position" of a company. Of course monopolies have a "dominant position", but so do oligopolies, leaders of a Stackelberg-like market... And what actually matters for prosecution is not that you have such position, but that you leverage it to prevent entry or fair(**) competition by non-dominant players (e.g., Intel having a huge market share was not a problem, but Intel leveraging that share to influence manufacturers into not integrating AMD processors got it in trouble in the early 2000s. Same with Microsoft and its IE integration into the OS in the Netscape lawsuit, etc.). So it doesn't really matter how you got to be dominant, or exactly "how dominant" you are, but only which actions you took conditional on having such position.

[Lurking]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Utilities aren't monopolies by regulation, they are monopolies due to the minimum efficient scale being equal or larger than the market size (a.k.a. "natural monopolies"). They are regulated due to being natural monopolies.

The hard infrastructure is inherently better done by a single player, true. But not the production. And in some countries (e.g. Germany) you can freely choose the company you purchase electricity from. Those provide the electricity (from wherever they produce or buy it), and pay a transmission fee to the company that actually runs the wires and transformers. Here where I live, I can't freely chose and both electricity and transmission comes from a single company. but this isn't inherently required. 

 

You also could provide your own power (i.e. solar/batteries), but you still are forced to pay for the electrical utility regardless. Electricity existed before central power plants existed. Many places had their own generators before there was a grid. 

 

Large consumers (think a car plant) also could find it worthwhile to get hooked up by two utilities (redundancy) or have a separate transmission line of their choice. Or they could become their own utility. But that is prevented by regulation and they basically have to do what the utility says. Same could be done for water.... i could be between two water utility grids and pick whichever works better. 

 

But you also have infrastructure where you can have competition. Like in our house we have copper phone line, TV cable, and now we are getting fiber. So ultimately I can have internet from DSL, cable, or fiber and have 3 companies competing. There also could be multiple fiber lines, or the provider just rents a fiber line and I could have multiple providers through one line. The only reason we only get fiber now (and before only had DSL and cable) is that when our neighborhood got developed our municipality got money from the cable/phone company to NOT allow other services for so many years. For years we had slow reliable DSL or faster, but less reliable and expensive, cable. This seems to have expired now and we can get fiber. This is just an example how government does NOT protect consumers. Unless you think having slow and unreliable internet is a good thing (like to prevent people from wasting time online...)

 

In the US at least, access to affordable and fast internet is much more a hindrance created by regulation. What I do with the internet (watch YT, or not) is a secondary problem. Once i make it through the few companies the company allows me to use, I have a choice of hundred streaming services (inc. YT)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

The hard infrastructure is inherently better done by a single player, true. But not the production.

It depends. Sometimes it's only the distribution infrastructure, sometimes it's both, depending on the market being served and the state of production technology (i.e., there are portable diesel generators but you can't profitably have a nuclear reactor for just one small town).

 

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

And in some countries (e.g. Germany) you can freely choose the company you purchase electricity from. Those provide the electricity (from wherever they produce or buy it), and pay a transmission fee to the company that actually runs the wires and transformers. 

Yes. Those markets are oligopolistic too, but in any case, that lack of vertical integration allows for some competition in whichever market is possible. It's happened in many countries by separating railroads from the companies operating the trains, separating electricity/gas producers from distributors and also from retailers (the ones you hire as a consumer). In the mobile industry, you have multiple networks (which ain't exactly efficient), but even more providers because there's regulation forcing the network owners to lease their network to other participants at a regulated price.

 

This is exactly the de-integration that we don't, but could, have in the streaming business, as there are several sustainable markets (with varying degrees of "natural" competitiveness) currently swept under the Youtube (and many Youtube wannabes over the years) rug: hosting & distribution (possibly separable as well), platforms, apps, and ad brokers.

If you allow a firm to integrate the least "naturally competitive" market (in your electricity example, the distribution infrastructure) with some/all the others, with no further regulation, you can allow multiple retailers all you want, there still will be just one huge electricity company and maybe a handful of tiny fringe providers for niche use cases.

 

 

[Lurking]

32 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

This is exactly the de-integration that we don't, but could, have in the streaming business, as there are several sustainable markets (with varying degrees of "natural" competitiveness) currently swept under the Youtube (and many Youtube wannabes over the years) rug: hosting & distribution (possibly separable as well), platforms, apps, and ad brokers.

But this is already NOT integrated. I get Internet from company A. And the product (Any Internet-service inc. streaming) from a variety of players.

 

How would you split YT services? They spend money on servers, and gain revenue by selling ads. Part of that revenue goes to creators. If you split it apart, the servers will be without revenue. And adding more layers creates more inefficiency and cost. 

 

If you see YT profits compared to the trillions of views, you will see margins are slim. If you add cost, you need to charge users or advertisers more, or pay less to creators.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 minutes ago, Lurking said:

But this is already NOT integrated. I get Internet from company A. And the product (Any Internet-service inc. streaming) from a variety of players.

I never say internet access was integrated too. 

 

4 minutes ago, Lurking said:

 

How would you split YT services?

I already detailed it, you quoted that exact part. 

 

4 minutes ago, Lurking said:

 

They spend money on servers, and gain revenue by selling ads. Part of that revenue goes to creators. If you split it apart, the servers will be without revenue.

Wrong. There are already plenty of examples of servers making money, they don't need to integrate all the way down to ads. That's what they do because it's better for them (as it would be for electricity companies), not because it's the only alternative.

Creators have myriads of ways to monetize their content, ads being one of them (just look at LMG's financial breakdown). They would be better off hiring hosting from a competitive market and also freely choosing the platforms that can access the same hosting (as opposed to the current duplicity needed to "compete" with youtube),and consumers could choose which app is best for them to interact with said platforms - none of which would be in detriment of creators.

 

Now, you may say that Youtube is not profitable even with current monopoly rents (I also mentioned that possibility before), but that would just mean that, as a whole, we don't currently value what we get enough to justify its cost, so it may as well shut down until more cost-effective technologies appear. In no way it means that it should get subsidized by other agents (it's not consumers, but actually creators, who currently bear most of the cost of YT's market power) via monopolistic rents

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, Lurking said:

When Google was founded (in a dorm room by students!), why did the other companies with much more money and market just make a better product? Maybe, but just maybe, Google actually had a better product???? Anyone who knew the Internet before google can attest it enhanced everyone's experience at the expense of the old players like Yahoo.

Google, while being the superior product almost never made it.  They did get some amounts of funding, and paid early employees in stock options.  With that said, before Google decided to do targeted ads they were on the verge of going bankrupt and essentially letting Yahoo take over [despite Google being better].

 

In this day and age as well, the better product doesn't always win

 

6 hours ago, Lurking said:

How exactly did Google muscle other players? Like did they hold a gun to someone's head? Threaten to kill their children? Any contracts with other companies most likely were reviewed by dozens of lawyers on both sides and both sides knew what they got into. If one of those contracts specifically violates a law, that specific contract would be voided or altered. But you have to proof it, not just accuse. 

They use the power that they have wielded in different ways to have it their way.

 

e.g. You want to be a major player in the phones,  you better sign the deal with Google to license Android.  Despite there being stock Androids, you aren't allowed the play store or Google services really unless you sign the contracts...oh and btw by signing the contracts you agree not to make stock Androids [even if that's what some people want].  You essentially are locked into the Google ecosystem then.

 

A problem with lets say YouTube is that they are able to leverage their entire scale to reduce the expenses that is YouTube.  This means that any company who wishes to compete will have to essentially burn through money...but I think that part of kind of okay, what isn't great though is that they won't be able to really provide ads as Google effectively has that all tied up for the video market [and if Google decides they don't like what you host then bye bye ad revenue].

 

Anyways, Google has already been caught, it's not just accused it's already gone through the courts in some cases.

 

e.g. Google pays Firefox to have Google as the default, or in the case of Apple Google pays Apple to have it as the default.  They can throw around cash that no one else can because they also control the advertising network for the large part so they can effectively corner the market there.

[Cyberspirit]

On 9/11/2024 at 6:45 PM, Real_Smoky said:

YouTube ad injection now injects two ads on my end, and often they are not 15 seconds, but 1 minute. I've had 2-3 minute ads, as well.

Currently, I am using Video Speed Controller for YT videos, and one side-effect of it is that I can speed up ads or skip through them. The problem is that this often breaks the player partially and I can't adjust video quality or click on the video timeline.

Do you think we will see a solution to this problem? 

I've been using Ublock Origin for years and literally never seen a single ad on YouTube or had any playback issues.

 

Just get that and stop wasting time on ads.

[Real_Smoky]

58 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

I've been using Ublock Origin for years and literally never seen a single ad on YouTube or had any playback issues.

 

Just get that and stop wasting time on ads.

I had it as well but the injected ads kept popping up.

I had to remove it and add it again and now it works again.