YouTube is running an experiment asking some users to disable their ad blockers or pay for a premium subscription, or they will not be allowed to watch videos.
I think the commenters intention was that YouTube could stream you the video with embedded ads. They would have to stream the content though and skipping ahead would have to be guarded serverside by some clever checks on if you received (and therefore likely seen) the section of the video with the ads.
What probably speaks against this is that it would significantly increase their costs, since they couldn’t cache as easily anymore and always need “clever” services/servers along the way. A dumb CDN wouldn’t cut it anymore.
I fear it’s still just a question of when it’s either cheap enough for Google to do it or when the expected returns are high enough to offset the increased costs.
The clever check is impossible. The server can’t know the client is showing the video even when playing DRM content. I could literally mute the sound and put a black box over the ad until it’s over. The problem is as old as the internet itself.
That’s why Apple and Meta pushing eye tracking so hard. It’s the only solution to the ad blocking problem.
I think YT is doing well with YT premium and that’s the way to go for them. It’s one of my favorite subscriptions and I’d probably stick around even if they raise the price unless they hurt the creators so badly they bounce and I’d bounce with them.
The clever check is impossible. The server can’t know the client is showing the video even when playing DRM content. I could literally mute the sound and put a black box over the ad until it’s over. The problem is as old as the internet itself.
They also can’t force you to look and listen to the current ads. So the “clever tracking” doesn’t need to be better than the status quo. What it could avoid is completely skipping ads as if they are not there. The server could reject giving you further frames until the time the ad runs is over. If you suppressed the ad, you still had to sit it out. Which in turn means that it’s (almost) futile for the user to do that. If I have to wait 2 minutes to watch, I might as well leave the ad running.
I think the commenters intention was that YouTube could stream you the video with embedded ads. They would have to stream the content though and skipping ahead would have to be guarded serverside by some clever checks on if you received (and therefore likely seen) the section of the video with the ads.
What probably speaks against this is that it would significantly increase their costs, since they couldn’t cache as easily anymore and always need “clever” services/servers along the way. A dumb CDN wouldn’t cut it anymore.
I fear it’s still just a question of when it’s either cheap enough for Google to do it or when the expected returns are high enough to offset the increased costs.
The clever check is impossible. The server can’t know the client is showing the video even when playing DRM content. I could literally mute the sound and put a black box over the ad until it’s over. The problem is as old as the internet itself.
That’s why Apple and Meta pushing eye tracking so hard. It’s the only solution to the ad blocking problem.
I think YT is doing well with YT premium and that’s the way to go for them. It’s one of my favorite subscriptions and I’d probably stick around even if they raise the price unless they hurt the creators so badly they bounce and I’d bounce with them.
They also can’t force you to look and listen to the current ads. So the “clever tracking” doesn’t need to be better than the status quo. What it could avoid is completely skipping ads as if they are not there. The server could reject giving you further frames until the time the ad runs is over. If you suppressed the ad, you still had to sit it out. Which in turn means that it’s (almost) futile for the user to do that. If I have to wait 2 minutes to watch, I might as well leave the ad running.
Exactly.