- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
Google could kill YouTube Vanced for good::The company is exploring an integrity API that could lock down WebViews with DRM
Google could kill YouTube Vanced for good::The company is exploring an integrity API that could lock down WebViews with DRM
It’s a waste of time. People who bother installing Vanced are not likely to click a single god damn ad even if it’s forced on them.
So yes, Google can choose to bother some people and get higher statistics on ad views, but the companies paying for the ad will not see one single fucking sale more. This lowers the value of the ad.
They’re chasing imaginary revenue.
The value of exposure isn’t real either. The phone might play it but I don’t fucking watch something that I don’t want to watch. I’ve been online since before online ads were a thing and not once have I bought anything from any online ads.
Just let me opt out of that circus for fuck sake.
I don’t understand this toxic level of optimism found on this platform. if they do client integrity checks, nobody will be able to use an ad blocker. you will have to use an approved YouTube client. it will result in higher ad revenue to Google.
all of these folks who are using revanced will watch annoying ads repeating a thousand times over and the content of the ad will be stuck in their brains exactly as intended. the companies that pay for the ads don’t care if you think you are immune to propaganda. they want you to watch.
what part of this is imaginary?
They don’t pay for ads just to waste my time. They buy ads to sell products.
Forced advertising does not work on the kind of people who already do everything they can not to watch ads.
I’m literally not watching my phone if YouTube or other stream goes into ad mode. I do not see the ad.
The imaginary part is that Google gets paid just as much for showing ads that don’t work as they do for showing ads that do work.
Forced advertising is good for Google. It’s not good for the users nor the companies who pay Google.
That’s not true. Do you think, say, coca cola cares if you click on ads? Not all ads are looking for clicks. Some just want to get impressions.
Yes it is true. They don’t make an impression when I don’t see it.
Call me old fashioned, but I have hands. I physically put my phone away because I do not want to watch the screen on my phone when the screen is showing an ad instead of showing what I wanted to see.
Companies are paying Google to show me ads that I don’t see.
Coca Cola’s brand recognition does not come from YouTube ads. It comes from signs in the real world, visual merchandising in stores and product placement in shows.
Absolutely. There are petrol pumps that play fucking ads. What do I do? Enter car. That’s horrifying to me.
I haven’t had YouTube ads for a long time thanks to Firefox focus but if I did? I’d probably abandon the platform. Otherwise I’d just put my phone upside down for as long as the ad might be.
You’re entirely correct. I refuse to ads. I wish billboards were illegal here. Ads are a fuck.
Ads on the internet are a consequence of people not wanting to pay for internet services.
This is absolutely not true as Steam and other niche streaming sites have proven. When you make it easier to buy what you’re selling, rather than doing everything in your power to nickel and dime consumers to pad your stock price, people are fine paying for those services and you don’t need ads.
Historically speaking, your statement is false, and there are multiple examples to prove it.
Then what’s difficult about paying for YouTube Premium?
Ads on the internet are fucking spyware, no thanks
I’ll take my PiHole and ublock and wipr and never see them again thanks
This is only true for large, legacy companies like Coca Cola though. This doesn’t work for startups shilling shitty headphones, flashlights, VPNs, mobile games, etc because you’re unlikely to randomly come across their product when walking around the grocery store for example.
The majority of ads are toxic on a medical need level for me. I’d sooner build an ai to prewatch and live record videos. Cutting out the cursed segment.’
Not all ads are cost per click, many are priced by impression, and that traffic to Vance’s costs money.
So they would make more money blocking Vance, but the impressions from Vance’s users are likely the seething “I’ll never buy from you for making me watch this ad” type.
If you aren’t paying them for Premium, or viewing their ads, you’re literally costing them money. They’d rather stop you from even consuming the bandwidth.
On the other hand, they are spending real money on development time to fight against an army of independents doing it for fun or personal satisfaction. That’s throwing money into a hole they can never fill up
Yeah, as someone in ops in another industry I would just chaulk this up to the cost of doing business, cut my losses, and move on. I can’t imagine most people are using ad blockers.
I doubt they think about the “army of independents” much at all.
With the multiple updates per day they’ve been hammering out against the ublock origin devs, I would disagree with that. Can’t think of a way they would be accidentally hashing it out against each other per matter of hours
They want to get paid, I just don’t think they see any competitor as a threat.
Well, that part is working really well. I’ve been using YouTube less and less every time they’ve worsened the free service. I don’t even bother with the revanced loopholes, I’ll just don’t use YouTube to find stuff. Most of the content is made for monetisation purposes anyway.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it, or that I don’t understand why. It’s just a prime example of the internet going to shit.
I’m not disagreeing you, just stating the facts. If we aren’t paying for it, and not watching their ads, we can’t expect to be considered at all. I paid for Premium for a few months, just canceled it while I catch up on some other things. We still have the freedom to pick and choose which services we pay for which is fine by me.
If you give thumbs ups and add comments, you’re still providing user generated content that increases the value of the content you watched, so they’re still getting something out of it. Your contributions could go on to drive someone else to watch the video which could end up seeing the ad you blocked.
It’s a question of what that value is that you’ve provided to the service. It’s the same question Reddit will be finding out the answers to over the next couple months.
You can try to look it up if you want, but I’d suspect those sort of interactions are fractions of a penny on the dollar compared to revenue from Premium or Ads.
Does it really cost them? If we take it to the extreme and say everyone collectively decided to stop costing them money by watching their content for free, what would that do to the value of their platform?
Yes, Bandwidth, servers, storage are all expensive. If everyone stopped paying or seeing ads they’d kill the product and you’d have nothing. There is no viable replacement for YouTube. Most channels would cease to exist. Only the larger ones would be able to afford to figure out how to keep going. The ladder would be pulled up for any small or new creator looking to break in.
It would suck but things would go on. I’m sure other places like tiktok would salivate at the idea of a YouTube exodus. Also there’s other platforms that would gladly have, at least, subsections of YouTube. Plenty of other places to post your gaming videos.
Letting TikTok win is not good. Unless something has changed, they pay shit to creators too.
I agree with you, it was more a point of YouTube needing us more than we need them.