You're viewing a single thread.
I'll be that guy and say this isn't crappy design and shouldn't be in this community. We've already got posts filling top of all we don't need more where they don't belong.
yeah, this is a policy OP doesn't like, not bad design
Ads are crappy by design. I think the spirit of the community is upheld with this post.
Well yes, nobody likes ads. But think of it this way - ads are "democratic" in a way, because it means everybody can "afford" or access that which is financed by the ads. Most websites are expensive to run and have to make money somehow to pay for itself - as much as I dislike ads, I'm not sure what the alternative would be? Should we have to pay to access each and every website? I don't know what the best solution would be, to be hones.
Ads have nothing to do with democracy; they are forced upon us and serve no other purpose than to manipulate you into buying a product. That's text-book capitalism for you.
Personally, as an open-source developer, I use crowd-funding to cover the expenses for the websites and software I provide. You will find no ads or tracking on my pages, and the same can be said for the majority of open-source projects.
The problem is rarely tied to cost; usually, it's about greed and the never-ending chase for higher profit margins.
Mind you, I'm just a single individual with a single experience, but if I can find a way to get paid for my work without forcing people to watch the visual diarrhea, so can the giants like Google.
YouTube only barely breaks even as it is. What profit margins are you talking about?
In Q3 of 2022 alone, Alphabet, the parent company of Google, recorded a profit (not revenue!) of 13.9 billion USD. Their financial position is more than secure.
https://abc.xyz/assets/investor/static/pdf/2022Q3_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf?cache=4156e7f
Even excusing the policy, the design is actually pretty shit though. We're all just used to it so it feels default and normal.
That's fair. I agree, it's mediocre at best.
While this is a policy I don't like, it's also something that is purposely destroying the usability of the Internet. Which I think constitutes a bad design.
I would argue that pop-ups like this are an intentionally crappy design meant to be frustrating and get in the way. But, I understand what your saying, this is perhaps not the best suited community for this post.
I think the difference here is I view "crappy design" as something badly made or poorly executed. What you describe I would consider to be "asshole design": perfectly well-made, but with bad intentions. I can see why you would have the different definition though, and considering the Reddit subs had a lot of these same definition issues it's not surprising they continue here.
How dare you inconvinience me for using your stuff for free r/choosingbeggars
King's behaviour is typical of the lefty democrat who never had a job in his life. So eager to betray America to the democrats technocrat overlords. Disgusting.
Yeah the guy reminding you stuff costs money is the jobless one, stop projecting in my inbox bro, cringe. google bad videos free.
Note how the lefty is incapable of constructive dialogue.
You mean the guy who's trying to watch videos for free and finger points his political beliefs if you disagree with him instead of replying with arguments? I agree with you.
Did you get your mother to write that for you?
Yeah she still speaks to me unlike yours
Unsolicited ads are implicitly anti-user, especially when they impede or interrupt access to content.
So you buy youtube premium instead? Or are you an entitled freeloading POS who shamelessly asks for uninterrupted free content? 😂
Where was this attitude when Netflix announced account sharing crackdowns? I buy premium to support the people I watch but still, what a wild comment.
What does netflix not want acc sharing have to do with youtube needing money to host their content and pay their creators? Dont like their new policy dont buy it are u looking for something to be mad about? Tf
Because they're both doing it for the exact same reason. Netflix doesn't want people using their service for free and neither does Youtube. Netflix didn't have ads so they cracked down on accounts. Youtube does, so they're cracking down on adblockers.
I was fine with Youtube locking their 4k+ resolutions behind premium but they're slowly tightening their hand more and more to make it 'profitable'. Hell, the queue feature is premium now. Using the app on your phone while it's 'locked' is a premium feature. Things that should be free are being stuffed into the 'premium' package but because that wasn't enough, they're trying to block adblockers. Making people pay for what they were getting for free, while it makes sense from a business perspective, never goes over well. Premium is really only worth it if you want the people you watch it get paid more, everything else can be done by third party players.
Although like Reddit, they might kill those off next.
"Should be free" ? You think only 4k videos cost them money? Bandwidth and storage for lower res is free? How naive jesus
Lol yes because people are already developing third party apps with those same features for free, ya duncecap.
Also if Youtube made their site "pay to access" we'd watch it die within the month.
Nice logic, movies can also be downloaded for free via "third party", does that mean studios should make them free because of that?
Can't download a movie theater which is where most of their money comes from. Streaming services definitely lose a lot of money and the only reason they can stay alive is in-house 'recommendations', high resolution/bandwidth streams, and compatibility with mobile devices. If third party sites/apps figure those three things out, will probably be tough to compete with.
What kind of moron watches ads willingly? That's some dumb shit right there I tell you what.
I'd say it's an ok design to enforce a crappy business model