Shareholders. Devs are just trying to not get fired
Devs are beholden to customers.
And the highest paying customers are enterprises that want to advertise. No one cares about the lemmings that actually watch videos.
It seems like a lot of this perception originates in the gaming industry where in some cases the devs actually do have quite a bit of control over user experience. In the rest of the software world, this stuff is driven by product management / marketing / whatever title they give to the people who define requirements.
“Why isn’t one of the most expensive to operate websites free?!”
There’s a reason there are zero actual competitors in this space (maybe TikTok but it’s full of its own problems). Only a company as big as Google can afford to run at this scale. Feel free to add your business plan on how to make YouTube free without ads and without it shutting down in 3 months.
Ads and subscription aside, any time there is a feature I like on YouTube, they remove it or change it. More often than not when they add a new feature, it makes the experience worse for me.
I understand they need to make money. I’m willing to sit through ads or pay a subscription for that. But the ads are constantly getting worse. Mid-roll ad breaks that are auto-generated into the video (for older videos, content creators would have to go through their library to manually change them, from what I understand). A push for censoring content to avoid demonetisation, even content not intended for children.
Yes, part of it is that I got used to YouTube in its early days when it was operating at a loss. When it was a wild west of content creation. But it just feels like it has become so unfriendly to users and content creators alike. It has become corporate and sterile, while trying to squeeze in revenue everywhere it can. (Likely to barely break even, sure, but they don’t have to make it crap to use to do that.)
Not a business plan because business=money, but how about creators host their own videos and share them through BitTorrent. No need to deliver real time video, users just download what they want to watch then watch them as they become available. Funding occurs through Kofi or Patreon etc. They’ll need to publish the magnet links somewhere but that’s a whole load cheaper than publishing RT video.
The vast majority of what YouTube does on a technical level is ingesting a ton of uploaded user video, encoding it in dozens of combinations of resolution, framerate, quality, and codec, then seamlessly choosing which version to serve to requesting clients to balance bandwidth, perceived quality, power efficiency in the data center, power efficiency on client devices, and hardware support for the client. There’s a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, and there’s a reason why the user experience is much more seamless on YouTube on a shitty data connection than, say, Plex on a good data connection.
No, it doesn’t need to be realtime, but people with metered or throttled bandwidth might benefit from downloading just in time video at optimized settings.
Well you say that, but I feel entitled to free shit. - Common take on lemmy
This but unironically? One of the reasons there’s no YouTube alternative is because it’s not profitable, but the other is it’s a monopoly. If YouTube failed tomorrow I’m sure a lot of free alternatives (Odyssey, Peertube instances, etc) would blow up
I really don’t think it’s the devs driving these decisions…
On one hand, yes, on the other, the devs won’t pitch ideas that go against the ad machine either. So ideas from devs are either neutral or pro-ad as well.
Option 1: lose money
Option 2: more money
Google: chooses option 2
Internet: surprisedpikachu.png
I sure sleep better at night knowing that they put a little gradient on the playback bar that turns the tip of it slightly magenta, though.
These platforms seem more vulnerable to alternatives than they ever have been before but it turns out the opposite is true. The hosting infrastructure is so expensive that it prevents competitors from even starting. Datacenters are basically a cartel and getting your foot in the door is near impossible without bouncing in on the heels of someone who’s in. Making compute storage cheaper is not the name of the game when it’s easier to profit by simply limiting access and driving the price up.
On the other hand, YouTube has never been profitable.
Its crazy Ads are starting to show up on premium. Just Cable 2.0.
Google has destroyed their own ads revenue by adding more and more ads. Imagine they’d have stopped with simple side banner and people would’ve not even bothered to use an adblocker because of it. This tiny little banner would’ve been worth as much as the multiple seconds ads now. The companies would pay as much, as there’d be no alternate.
YouTube is free, accessible and innovative, though? That meme doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Oh no, I didn’t pay and have to watch an ad! Literally slaves.
Genuinely curious what parts of the UI have gotten worse. Open video, video plays, move on.
It’s obvious that Google would rather try to make money than bleed it into one of the most expensive websites out there, so the ads are a moot point. Pay or become the product.
Two big things I’ve noticed:
-
They removed the Chromecast queue feature. So if I’m casting to my TV, I can either play one video at a time, or I can enable autoplay and see what the algorithm decides to serve me - I can’t queue up a few videos and just watch those, like I used to be able to.
-
Playlists are becoming harder and harder to use. Finding the button to add a video to a playlist, moving videos from one playlist to another, and managing playlists in general has all become more difficult recently.
-
The problem with the “free” part is that hosting videos isn’t free so there needs to be monetization in some form.
