Youtube adding support for 60FPS

[General Zod]

So just today I was forced to sit through a 30 second ad just to watch a two minute instructible. Goddamnit Youtube.

[Lost Soal]

Blip used to have a banner flashing up for a minute if it detected add blocker asking you to turn it off to only wait 30 seconds. Adblock+ patched in a way around that of course eventually but it created some interesting bullshit

[bilateralrope]

Blip used to have a banner flashing up for a minute if it detected add blocker asking you to turn it off to only wait 30 seconds. Adblock+ patched in a way around that of course eventually but it created some interesting bullshit

Attempting to Fool any websites means to detect Adblock users is the point I feel Adblock crosses from ethical to unethical behavior. It is the point where Adblock removes the website operators choice over if they let Adblock users visit. Which means it is the point where the comparison to software piracy becomes valid.

That is, if Adblock did actually bypass Blips detection. I remember when Blip did that, not because I was using Adblock, but because Blip kept thinking that I was using it. So I have to ask, did Blip stop trying to detect Adblock because Adblock kept fooling it, or because there were too many false positives ?

[Purple]

Attempting to Fool any websites means to detect Adblock users is the point I feel Adblock crosses from ethical to unethical behavior. It is the point where Adblock removes the website operators choice over if they let Adblock users visit. Which means it is the point where the comparison to software piracy becomes valid.

And you know what? I am going to be blunt here. Why should the site operator have a choice about who he lets into his site? That is akin to saying a restaurant operator should have the choice to evict blind people because they can't read the adds he printed on his walls. Or that he should be allowed to only let white people in because the adds are targeted toward whites.

Imagine if every time you tried to enter a shop or cafe or some other businesses the staff forced you to sit down and watch a commercial before you could attend to what ever it is you wanted to do there. Why is that considered unacceptable in the real world but somehow acceptable on the internet?

And imagine now you invented some way to fool the staff into thinking they had already shown you the add so they leave you alone and let you shop. Why is THAT the unethical choice?

---

In fact, not only is this not unethical behavior on our part but it is exactingly the kind of thing people talk about when they speak about market forces effecting the free market. Addblock is a market force created from the desire of consumers to reject intrusive adds and it has an effect in shaping the market by forcing people to rethink how they advertize until such a time that they find some way which consumers will accept. It is no less unethical than refusing to buy games with restrictive DRM or refusing to buy in stores that flaunt political views you don't support. Things like this are not just a part but a very important part of maintaining a healthy market economy. And by saying that it is unethical to give consumers that power you are saying that it is unethical for consumers to speak up and have their voice heard by the industry.

[General Zod]

Blip used to have a banner flashing up for a minute if it detected add blocker asking you to turn it off to only wait 30 seconds. Adblock+ patched in a way around that of course eventually but it created some interesting bullshit

Attempting to Fool any websites means to detect Adblock users is the point I feel Adblock crosses from ethical to unethical behavior. It is the point where Adblock removes the website operators choice over if they let Adblock users visit. Which means it is the point where the comparison to software piracy becomes valid.

That is, if Adblock did actually bypass Blips detection. I remember when Blip did that, not because I was using Adblock, but because Blip kept thinking that I was using it. So I have to ask, did Blip stop trying to detect Adblock because Adblock kept fooling it, or because there were too many false positives ?

Frankly, if the ads become obtrusive enough, I'll stop visiting a site altogether even if there's no good alternatives. I think charging content creators to upload their videos would be a better way of generating revenue than forcing me to sit through ads, (and hopefully cut down on bullshit that gets uploaded), but ymmv.

[Civil War Man]

Blip used to have a banner flashing up for a minute if it detected add blocker asking you to turn it off to only wait 30 seconds. Adblock+ patched in a way around that of course eventually but it created some interesting bullshit

There was a bit of an arms race going on between them for a while. Blip created the banner, Adblock patched around it, Blip patched around the patch, etc. I think also at one point Blip also increased the wait time dramatically because people were willing to wait an extra 30 seconds to not see an ad.

I do have one question for the people decrying Adblock's practices. Youtube also gives the ability for users to skip ads. Do you believe that Youtube should not allow this practice? If you are fine with Youtube's ad skipping, but not Adblock's, what is it about Youtube's version that makes it okay? Functionally, the only difference between ad skipping on Youtube and Adblock is that Adblock is a) automated, b) does not have a 5 second lag, and c) a third party application.

For the record, I do run Adblock personally. Partially for the convenience, and partially because web site ads are a common vector for malware.

[General Zod]

Blip used to have a banner flashing up for a minute if it detected add blocker asking you to turn it off to only wait 30 seconds. Adblock+ patched in a way around that of course eventually but it created some interesting bullshit

There was a bit of an arms race going on between them for a while. Blip created the banner, Adblock patched around it, Blip patched around the patch, etc. I think also at one point Blip also increased the wait time dramatically because people were willing to wait an extra 30 seconds to not see an ad.

I do have one question for the people decrying Adblock's practices. Youtube also gives the ability for users to skip ads. Do you believe that Youtube should not allow this practice? If you are fine with Youtube's ad skipping, but not Adblock's, what is it about Youtube's version that makes it okay? Functionally, the only difference between ad skipping on Youtube and Adblock is that Adblock is a) automated, b) does not have a 5 second lag, and c) a third party application.

For the record, I do run Adblock personally. Partially for the convenience, and partially because web site ads are a common vector for malware.

Not every Youtube ad is skippable. If they all were I wouldn't have a problem but why should I be forced to sit through a 30 second ad for a 2 minute clip?

[Lost Soal]

Blip used to have a banner flashing up for a minute if it detected add blocker asking you to turn it off to only wait 30 seconds. Adblock+ patched in a way around that of course eventually but it created some interesting bullshit

There was a bit of an arms race going on between them for a while. Blip created the banner, Adblock patched around it, Blip patched around the patch, etc. I think also at one point Blip also increased the wait time dramatically because people were willing to wait an extra 30 seconds to not see an ad.

I do have one question for the people decrying Adblock's practices. Youtube also gives the ability for users to skip ads. Do you believe that Youtube should not allow this practice? If you are fine with Youtube's ad skipping, but not Adblock's, what is it about Youtube's version that makes it okay? Functionally, the only difference between ad skipping on Youtube and Adblock is that Adblock is a) automated, b) does not have a 5 second lag, and c) a third party application.

For the record, I do run Adblock personally. Partially for the convenience, and partially because web site ads are a common vector for malware.

If you skip the add, the content creator gets no revenue but if it is watched they get more money than for one which doesn't offer the skip function. Its the creators choice, do they go for one which may be skipped but get more money for it or take the unskippable ad at a lower rate of pay.

[TheFeniX]

Advertising needs to evolve to the current market. Pushing ads like you would in the 90s before the advent of DVRs and Internet video is stupid. As much as ad integration on paid products pisses me the fuck off, EA did have a good idea with games like Fight Night and Burnout Paradise: ads are sprinkled about the game unobtrusively or presented in a way that makes sense, such as "This fight brought to you by... Burger King." However, anything I paid money for should fuck off with the advertising.

But Internet video is not TV. You have a whole generation of kids who are not old enough to remember the time when watching a TV show meant having to sit through commercials for ~10-20% of your viewing time. Those days are pretty much over unless you're stuck watching broadcast TV. Now they can routinely load up any video they want, advertisement free, watch it, and move onto the next video. Anything that slows this process down pisses them off.

[Civil War Man]

Not every Youtube ad is skippable. If they all were I wouldn't have a problem but why should I be forced to sit through a 30 second ad for a 2 minute clip?

I wasn't factoring in the non-skippable ads into the equation. My question was just directed at people who are opposed to Adblock but not skippable ads in Youtube and why they would draw a distinction between the two. In practice, they are incredibly similar. In both cases, the advertiser is paying to place an ad that consumers will not see. The Youtube one just requires user input to skip the ad.

If you skip the add, the content creator gets no revenue but if it is watched they get more money than for one which doesn't offer the skip function. Its the creators choice, do they go for one which may be skipped but get more money for it or take the unskippable ad at a lower rate of pay.

According to Google, the creators get paid a higher rate if they choose unskippable ads, but at the cost of having fewer views overall, which may lead to lower revenue overall than if they allow ads to be skipped.

In-stream ads are sold on a CPM basis, and may generate higher CPMs than other ad formats on YouTube. Please note that while non-skippable in-stream ads may generate higher revenue than other ad formats, they also have a higher abandonment rate. Enabling this ad format across your videos can lead to lower video views and watch time.

[General Zod]

I wasn't factoring in the non-skippable ads into the equation. My question was just directed at people who are opposed to Adblock but not skippable ads in Youtube and why they would draw a distinction between the two. In practice, they are incredibly similar. In both cases, the advertiser is paying to place an ad that consumers will not see. The Youtube one just requires user input to skip the ad.

Well . . . here's another spin on the whole advertising issue. If the whole point is to convert clicks into sales, there's mounting evidence that it's just not very effective at doing that.

Some ads persuade us to buy. Some ads tell us to buy something we were already going to buy, anyway. It's awfully hard to figure out which is which.

[Mr Bean]

Here is the thing about advertising in the internet age.
The metrics are to good.

With Radio, TV and Newspaper ads you can only guess and survey to see how useful your ad bucks are. Radio and newspaper both used to be infamous for having expensive ads compared to how many eyeballs you got compared to how much money spent.

But on the internet you know EXACTLY how many people click on an banner ad, or tab away from a video ad, or use adblocker to stop every ad out there. There is also the small problem that 90% of viruses these days seem to be launched from banner ads is making it worse since a radio ad never made you car explode.