• theshonen8899@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I’m a software engineer at AWS and work on video content delivery for services like Netflix. The idea that one single ad could cover the cost of delivering a video that’s been replicated in multiple servers, multiple regions, multiple countries throughout the world is pretty hilarious. No matter how much money you think YouTube is making I can almost guarantee it’s not enough. There is a reason there is no significant competition in this space, it makes no money.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s not really a single ad though, right? It’s a single ad per view. I realize that each view costs money, but at some point you’re just paying for bandwidth, after paying the upfront replication costs right? Assuming replication is an upfront cost, I might be misunderstanding there. If that’s true though, then surely there’s a breakpoint where ads start making money. Though I suppose if that breakpoint is like a million views, your point basically still stands.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You’re forgetting amortization. You can’t copy a video file to a drive and expect it to last forever. It requires energy to run and the drivers break down over time. Google is one of the largest consumers of HDDs and SSDs in the world. Plus you need to pay engineers who maintain the whole thing, pay the finance team to make orders, etc. And then you have to have recycling and logistics. I bet they dispose of the whole truck loads of old drives every day, you can’t put that many in your recycling bin and call it a day.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Genuine question.

      How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?

      I doubt they had been just sinking money for the kind of their hearts.

      I do not know how much it cost to run a service like YouTube. Or how much money they make by ads or other ways. But they have been running for long enough to be a successful business.

      And it’s just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        How is been running for almost 20 years, most of them with very few ads?

        Investor money, then Google money. Video streaming requires fuckloads of storage and is a HUGE bandwidth hog, especially if people want to watch stuff at 1080p or higher resolutions. Youtube is a money pit, but it’s a major and nearly untouchable internet power, especially given its size and reach.

        And it’s just the latest few years when they are pushing these aggressive techniques.

        The “easy money” from loans with very low interest rates has dried up, also Google being Google.

        • Cargon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          There’s also the cost to transcode the video and audio streams into different formats so they don’t have to do it on demand whenever someone watches a video. That’s a lot of compute cost plus they have to store all of those additional transcodes which is more storage cost.

      • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I know that for many years in the 2000s and early 2010s- what many consider to be the golden age of Youtube- they were losing money. That’s what I think a lot or people don’t get when they claim “enshittification”- the services they are complaining about are unsustainable in their current form. That’s what it takes to establish a digital product- grow your base first while bleeding money, then figure out a way to monetize it later. As capital tightens up, the clock is running out for brands like Netflix, Discord, Youtube etc to start making money. That’s the part that sucks as a consumer but idk what else YouTube can do if it wants to be profitable. They offer a premium version for people that don’t want to watch ads.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I refused to use adblock for years. Not because I thought Youtube needed MORE money, but because I did realize that a business ultimately only continues operating as long as the business model is sustainable. I endured, through occasional ads, ads at the bottom, then through ads every time a video was watched, then ads in the middle of videos, and even two ads before every video.

    But three unskippable ads was where I drew the fucking line. Now I use adblock for Youtube and Youtube only.

  • eezeebee@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I was fine with giving them 5 seconds of attention in exchange for a video. Then they added more and more, and moved the skip button SOMETIMES. It’s straight up disrespectful.

  • Fleppensteyn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I accidentally watched a YouTube video on a browser without blocking. It started with an ad. I thought I’d just endure it this time. Then another ad. OK, just this time then. Suddenly, another ad in the middle of the video. I gave up. Who’d have the patience to sit through this?

    Then there’s Google’s habit of completely ignoring the browser’s language settings so I have to sit though ads I don’t even understand.

    • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      That is actually ideal

      I had to tailor my do not recommend and not interested in this subject clicks until I was left with the one advertiser that I’m actually interested in, and that’s basically low voltage communication mux devices…