• h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ah yes that makes a lot of sense. Googles war on adblockers seems really expensive but we don’t know the numbers maybe it’s still cheaper.

    • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The HLS integration we offered definitely had a premium attached to it as well as an additional cost to the CDN that required the integration to live on. So it’s not cheap.

      It is weird that Google, with it’s infinite pockets, hasn’t pushed a stream stitched solution all these years until recently.

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        YouTube serves probably dozens of formats/bitrates, and has spent years tweaking how it ingests, transcodes, and serves videos. Adding in-stream ads might have been a bigger engineering task in that environment. Depending on the percentage of users/viewers avoiding ads, it might not have been worth the return.

        • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          As I know they transcode every uploaded video to their preferred format. They could use the same infrastructure for the ads. But maybe it’s really too expensive.

        • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You are correct, which goes into the cost category of doing a stream stitched integration. Also, when I left said ad server in 2016, I think I recall HLS streaming primarily supported by Apple devices. Devices like Roku’s (don’t quote me on that) didn’t support it at the time so a lot of companies looked at where the majority of their streaming was occurring and decided it wasn’t worth the hit.