Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I totally agree with you, but I also notice the slow but steady increase in ad content before, between, below all YouTube videos, that also seem to call back to my preferences, feelings, tastes, past interactions, etc.

The question I always ask is: how long until YouTube removes the ability to skip ads altogether? How long until a painfully nontrivial portion of our browsing time is spent directly consuming propaganda?




> How long until a painfully nontrivial portion of our browsing time is spent directly consuming propaganda?

They'll be running commercials on television in a few years at this rate.


If you don't want to pay for it and you don't want to be 'consuming propaganda' who do you think should be paying to run YouTube for you?


Maybe google should be be "bait and switch I will eat looses till competition dies" in the first place. It repeatedly screws market, killing smaller companies competing in the same space.


Just like on Facebook, the ads are doing much more than ‘paying to run’ the platform. And moreover, why would YouTube do anything but continue to increase the amount of ad content? It directly translates to more cash and profit. Same goes for paying content creators less.


> And moreover, why would YouTube do anything but continue to increase the amount of ad content? It directly translates to more cash and profit.

No the relationship isn't direct. As you add more advertising content to videos people will watch less and the advertising revenue would go down - this makes it not directly correlated.

> Same goes for paying content creators less.

In the same way, it's not a direct relationship. As you pay creators less they're less incentivised to create content for you to attach your advertising to.

To prove by absurdity, if you added an hour of un-skippable advertising to a two minute video, few people would watch the video.


This got a bit more complicated when they youtube launched their premium ad-free subscription.

Now the annoyance of ads also serves the direct purpose of advertising their own service.


If the ads was only there to run youtube there would be much much less of them.


As of 2015 it was famously not profitable! Maybe they've added more adverts since then? I don't know but I would think at most YouTube earns a normal operating profit. I don't think it's printing money.


It was? Couldn't find anything about it more than that someone, unnamed, from google said it was more or less break even.

Alphabet doesn’t disclose how much money YouTube is making, but RBC Capital analyst Mark Mahaney estimates YouTube’s annual revenue has reached $10 billion and is increasing by as much as 40% a year. The growth makes YouTube “one of the strongest assets fundamentally on the Internet today,” Mahaney wrote in a research note this week.

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-...

But I have a hard time believing it wasn't profitable in 2015 either. Sure, if they re-invest most of it and pays out the rest to youtubers as a way to market the platform then you can pretend it is breaking even.

Oh, and yes, the difference in ads between now and 2015 is huge. Likely close to an order of magnitude where I am, but that probably greatly varies depending on which market you are in.


The $10 a month I pay for Youtube Premium improves my life a lot more than some other things I pay that or more for.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: