this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
786 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
59187 readers
3192 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the users do get paid though, although i'm sure it's a fraction of what youtube makes.
Hmmm. $20 a month for the big budget action of Westworld, or $20 a month for a cooking show filmed in someone’s basement. Decisions, decisions.
To be fair, YouTube has far more variety and far more content overall. Personally, I have seen pretty much anything worth watching on the major streaming services. My wife and I can just ignore any top 200 list of shows or movies because we have already seen it all and anything we haven't seen doesn't look interesting to us. We just have to wait for new shows to come out.
YouTube though. It's functionally unlimited considering the length of a human lifespan.
For some insight, a quick Google search says that Netflix has about 4 years of content if you sat down and watched everything they have to offer. Meanwhile, YouTube has about 18,000 years of content.
Are they including all those 10-hour long loop videos I uploaded?
I'd take 10h shreksophone over 3 of those 4 years worth of netflix content any day of the week!
I've never been one to really get into the loop of watching YouTube endlessly. It's felt like my use has been more like a search engine.
For me it's not really been a great source of entertainment. At best background noise. Quantity of hours is a useless metric for me when most of it is stuff that feels like unnecessary content. I think it's most telling that what makes YouTube watchable for me is sponsorblock with one of my most used functions skip to highlight, and blocktube to block the popular channels that dominate search results. And lately youtubetranscript to just save myself time watching and overly long 10+ minute long segment in favor of quickly skimming over the words.
I feel the algorithm promoting long videos has ruined the quality with now more videos trying to fit that minimum length.
The irony of this comment is you can find the cooking show but not Westworld on HBO lol
honestly i will watch westworld once, but i never use my netflix account but i watch stuff like physics lectures and chemistry videos all the time. i just find it fascinating, in a way scripted TV isn't for me.
I'd pay more for YouTube rather than HBO/Netflix. There's much more content that interests me on YouTube.
I sleep to lectures on youtube so I probably clock up a lot of hours a day and ads would ruin that forever - so I pay
but i do enjoy a lot of creator channels too, so it's worth it for that as well. plus i really fucking hate ads.
part of me also thinks - it must cost a bomb to deliver that much data and storage, plus the bandwidth for 4k video at any time, plus paying the people who make content. some of them are millionaires, youtuber is kind of a career and it's not all in-video endorsements.
at some point, someone has to pay, and it's the advertisers paying to access me, or it's me paying. i'd rather pay. i'd prefer it if it was free but i kind of get that it's not. I couldn't pay to host youtube and develop the platform and have everyone watch free.
Or $20 for thousands of different channels of all kinds of content.
At least be honest about it.
How much of those channels are actually quality content let alone manage to keep the attention of viewers to watch an entire video? It's like a cable services advertising that it has thousands of channels. Videos that manage to hold my attention even for 10 minutes on YouTube has been rare, and mostly aided by 2x speeds to shorten it down by half.
I watch documentaries on youtube, 30-60 min on avg
I’ve got close to 100 channels that I subscribe to and watch regularly. Probably another 300 that I watch occasionally. YouTube makes up 90% of my visual content. The other 10% being sports that isn’t broadcast on YouTube and stuff I watch with my wife.
YouTube has literally anything you could want in visual content.
If you’re having problem keeping your attention span focused, maybe go see a doctor or therapist for adhd or something? Because there is so much shit on YouTube that you should 100% be able to find content to suit you.
Uh... That seems unnecessarily hostile haha. That's good for, but my point was that for me. Not you. For me that I haven't found anything that provides the type of content I've found on Netflix, HBO, etc on YouTube on a consistent basis. I'm not talking about the ability of something to just keep people fixated for hours the way tiktok has become king in that area and YouTube is trying to catch up with shorts. But, more general conventional entertainment beyond those that are fun time passers the way mobile games are, but might not meet expectations of a Last of Us or Elden Ring or Breath of the Wild type game release on other old school platforms if that makes any sense.
I think we are talking about different things. You more about ability of content to take up time and keep people in a loop. Me more whether the services has the type of medium I want. Which regardless of the amount of content YouTube has it doesn't really have, which makes the whole channel numbers for my case not really matter. Apple has made much more progress in original content I want to watch than YouTube has.
What do you care about ads on a service you don't use then?
Huh? Ongoing comment chain was started by someone saying they prefer paying for Westworld type productions over user generated YouTube content, and then people arguing about what they value in a service with one side arguing production quality and the other side taking the approach of quantity of hours of content is what matters. It's a separate discussion from ads.
This is a YouTube vs HBO, Apple TV, Netflix type discussion and which type of content they prefer than an ad one.
I'm sorry but I find this deeply comic and I can't stop giggle
At the same time, clickbait has always existed. There's a reason trash emerged from tv to become his own subgenre
The DeArrow extension "fixes" thumbnails on Youtube to make them less clickbaity. Sadly content makers have to do it if they want the blessings of the algorithm god.
We actually don't know what percentage they're making. They can tell you how much they're paid, but no one but Google can tell you how much of the subscription cost goes to them versus Google.
This was maybe 5 or so years ago, but I remember Game Grumps did mention something along the lines of how they get more from someone watching their video on YouTube premium vs someone who watches their videos with ads playing.
It's still not a ton of info, and I'm not sure if it's still true. Or maybe it's different for every channel or something.
It's such a low number most people would be disgusted.
We're talking a few bucks for a million views.
the big guys get sponsors to fund them, not ad revenue
That's a symptom of a broken system. It's literally users creating their own ads because the platform's ads aren't getting them paid.
On a related note, you can skip those ads with a plugin, or the right app on Android and Android TV.
It's about 1$ per 1000 views. Source: my small YT channel.
cpm = cents per million