YouTube gets more aggressive in pushing adblock warnings with countdown timer
source link: https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-gets-more-aggressive-in-pushing-adblock-warnings-with-countdown-timer/
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
38 Comments - Add comment
"Earlier this year, YouTube launched a "1080p Premium" video quality with a higher bit rate."
Honestly, 480p is generally 'good enough' for basic YouTube videos on a typical 1080p PC monitor etc. even in terms of HD (like even outside of YouTube, like with x264(h264) files of a sufficient file size (call it roughly 4-9GB))... 720p is really close to 1080p quality at a smaller file size. basically when it comes to HD, outside of a very limited amount of movies etc, I default to 720p since it's more 'bang-for-the-buck' (i.e. retains near 1080p image quality but at a noticeably lower file size) and only get 1080p occasionally for a small amount of movies I would rather have the slight image quality increase (like I can notice the difference, but it's not much to where if someone is not comparing them, I would be willing to guess many people would not even notice it as the difference is not much as there is more of a difference between SD to 720p than from 720p to 1080p on a typical 1080p TV variation).
"Earlier this year, YouTube launched a "1080p Premium" video quality with a higher bit rate."
Honestly, 480p is generally 'good enough' for basic YouTube videos on a typical 1080p PC monitor etc. even in terms of HD (like even outside of YouTube, like with x264(h264) files of a sufficient file size (call it roughly 4-9GB))... 720p is really close to 1080p quality at a smaller file size. basically when it comes to HD, outside of a very limited amount of movies etc, I default to 720p since it's more 'bang-for-the-buck' (i.e. retains near 1080p image quality but at a noticeably lower file size) and only get 1080p occasionally for a small amount of movies I would rather have the slight image quality increase (like I can notice the difference, but it's not much to where if someone is not comparing them, I would be willing to guess many people would not even notice it as the difference is not much as there is more of a difference between SD to 720p than from 720p to 1080p on a typical 1080p TV variation).
480p is generally 'good enough' , dude do you have monitors from 1990s or what ? In 2023 1080p is bare minimum except that you are watching it on phone than 720 is fine. You cant even clearly read text or if you are following a tutorial see code or options on screen etc at 480p!
480p is generally 'good enough' , dude do you have monitors from 1990s or what ? In 2023 1080p is bare minimum except that you are watching it on phone than 720 is fine. You cant even clearly read text or if you are following a tutorial see code or options on screen etc at 480p!
Welcome to 1999 where resolutions are 1024x768.
"Earlier this year, YouTube launched a "1080p Premium" video quality with a higher bit rate."
Honestly, 480p is generally 'good enough' for basic YouTube videos on a typical 1080p PC monitor etc. even in terms of HD (like even outside of YouTube, like with x264(h264) files of a sufficient file size (call it roughly 4-9GB))... 720p is really close to 1080p quality at a smaller file size. basically when it comes to HD, outside of a very limited amount of movies etc, I default to 720p since it's more 'bang-for-the-buck' (i.e. retains near 1080p image quality but at a noticeably lower file size) and only get 1080p occasionally for a small amount of movies I would rather have the slight image quality increase (like I can notice the difference, but it's not much to where if someone is not comparing them, I would be willing to guess many people would not even notice it as the difference is not much as there is more of a difference between SD to 720p than from 720p to 1080p on a typical 1080p TV variation).
why do you repeat the same comments over and over?
i have responded to you on this before; Alot of content is bitrate starved, even if you were on a 720 or 480 monitor, downscaling from 1080 would be a clear improvement.
480p is generally 'good enough' , dude do you have monitors from 1990s or what ? In 2023 1080p is bare minimum except that you are watching it on phone than 720 is fine. You cant even clearly read text or if you are following a tutorial see code or options on screen etc at 480p!
I am simply saying for casual content, 480p is watchable (like in a typical browser window etc). to say otherwise is simply not correct. sure, I get HD is better and all. but it's no where near as bad as some say as some people are simply very spoiled.
it's those same types of people who probably say anything under 60fps in a game is 'horrible' when in reality that's not true.
for the record... I have a Samsung 1080p 24" 144Hz monitor (Aug 2021 mfg date). watching a random YouTube video at 480p is not a real issue. sure, quality is not as good as say "HD" but it's far from bad. that's just a fact when it comes to most general content (putting reading small text aside).
but I do agree with you that in certain videos, what you said is also true with trying to follow a tutorial as small text is hard to read (in which case HD starts to become much more important). but short of that stuff, like in more casual video content of watching people speak and the like, which is mainly what I was referring to, what I said is basically accurate.
why do you repeat the same comments over and over?
i have responded to you on this before; Alot of content is bitrate starved, even if you were on a 720 or 480 monitor, downscaling from 1080 would be a clear improvement.
The reason I say that is because it's basically true. take any 480p/720p/1080p AT A SUFFICIENT BIT RATE and what I said is accurate.
but sure, if bit rate is really low, then yeah, that's a problem (but when I said what I said, I just assumed the bit rate is sufficient at any given resolution). but even on the 'movie' stuff I am talking about, one can go noticeably lower file size and still have pretty much same visual quality. so for say 720p/1080p content to take a solid hit, the bit rate would have to be rather bad as all of the stuff I have seen this is not a problem.
so it appears it's a misunderstanding as you are saying 'bit rate starved', but in my comment I am just assuming 'there is sufficient bit rate'. I don't think you would disagree with me on my general comments when there is sufficient bit rate at any random resolution like 480p/720p/1080p etc.
p.s. but I do agree with 'Ccl Ncc' when he said HD is important for reading small text. but that's more of exception than the rule. because, I don't know about everyone else, but when watching random YouTube videos one is primarily watching people speak, not reading small text.
I understand YouTube's actions, to be honest. People on the Internet want everything to be free, but at the same time they don't want to see ads or allow cookies. But servers aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Storage isn't free. Writers, moderators, web developers and sysadmins don't work for free. YouTube (and any other site) needs to generate revenue somehow to stay up. If we don't want to pay with money, that's fine, but we need to pay with something. Nothing on this world is really free...
I understand YouTube's actions, to be honest. People on the Internet want everything to be free, but at the same time they don't want to see ads or allow cookies. But servers aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Storage isn't free. Writers, moderators, web developers and sysadmins don't work for free. YouTube (and any other site) needs to generate revenue somehow to stay up. If we don't want to pay with money, that's fine, but we need to pay with something. Nothing on this world is really free...
yes, but the main issue I think is, they chose to have intrusive ads vs ads that don't need to be.
For example, they could easily embed a sponsored ad at the bottom of the content you are watching, and not drown out the content creator's work, but instead, they want to do what twitch is doing and that is full 30-120sec ad that pisses people off since the thing they came to watch is now lost for 30-120secs (hell, I have seen twitch do 5 30 sec ads back to back), and that is just too much
yes, but the main issue I think is, they chose to have intrusive ads vs ads that don't need to be.
For example, they could easily embed a sponsored ad at the bottom of the content you are watching, and not drown out the content creator's work, but instead, they want to do what twitch is doing and that is full 30-120sec ad that pisses people off since the thing they came to watch is now lost for 30-120secs (hell, I have seen twitch do 5 30 sec ads back to back), and that is just too much
There use to be a small at the beginning and it wasn't bad, now there are Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many in a 10 min video. Not even well placed, just takes you out of the moment.
I understand YouTube's actions, to be honest. People on the Internet want everything to be free, but at the same time they don't want to see ads or allow cookies. But servers aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Storage isn't free. Writers, moderators, web developers and sysadmins don't work for free. YouTube (and any other site) needs to generate revenue somehow to stay up. If we don't want to pay with money, that's fine, but we need to pay with something. Nothing on this world is really free...
Yes it isn't free, but advertisers are footing the bill instead of users.
Here's the problem. Google wants more money than what they're making now. Always. Not because they want to provide us with a better service, but simply because they want to increase their share price.
Take a look at Google's quarterly reports. They aren't "struggling". It is simply greed. Greed that turns small static ads at the side of the video to a footnote style banner ad to a skippable ad before the video to two 5 second skippable ads before the video to a 30 second unskippable ad to.. The worst that I've seen, a 2 hour unskippable documentary about some charity that played as an ad on YouTube TV app.
OK fine, is YouTube atleast compensating the creators fairly for keeping the site alive? No. The monetization policy is heavily skewed towards the biggest content creators. The algorithm wrecks havoc on the type of content they produce. And even the bigger ones have to rely on sponsorship and ads baked into the video to make it sustainable for them.
Don't even get me started on using YouTube as a weapon and not releasing an app for Windows Phone, blocking third party apps and strong arming those who were ready to work with Google to insert ads in their app.
I have no mercy for Google/YouTube, sorry
I understand YouTube's actions, to be honest. People on the Internet want everything to be free, but at the same time they don't want to see ads or allow cookies. But servers aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Storage isn't free. Writers, moderators, web developers and sysadmins don't work for free. YouTube (and any other site) needs to generate revenue somehow to stay up. If we don't want to pay with money, that's fine, but we need to pay with something. Nothing on this world is really free...
At one point there was a rash of YouTube adds that used a publicly available JavaScript code that used the browser to mine for Crypto currency. It was a big story before the pandemic and since then I have been using adblock to block bad ads. If the ad isn't malicious then I don't block it. At more ads have been getting malicious.
Yes it isn't free, but advertisers are footing the bill instead of users.
Here's the problem. Google wants more money than what they're making now. Always. Not because they want to provide us with a better service, but simply because they want to increase their share price.
Take a look at Google's quarterly reports. They aren't "struggling". It is simply greed. Greed that turns small static ads at the side of the video to a footnote style banner ad to a skippable ad before the video to two 5 second skippable ads before the video to a 30 second unskippable ad to.. The worst that I've seen, a 2 hour unskippable documentary about some charity that played as an ad on YouTube TV app.
OK fine, is YouTube atleast compensating the creators fairly for keeping the site alive? No. The monetization policy is heavily skewed towards the biggest content creators. The algorithm wrecks havoc on the type of content they produce. And even the bigger ones have to rely on sponsorship and ads baked into the video to make it sustainable for them.
Don't even get me started on using YouTube as a weapon and not releasing an app for Windows Phone, blocking third party apps and strong arming those who were ready to work with Google to insert ads in their app.
I have no mercy for Google/YouTube, sorry
Demonetized videos being ineligible for Premium revenue is also a nice touch. They hang the sword of Damocles over their creators, push ahead with wildly unpopular changes, enact retroactive policies that change with the shifting winds, and leave bot and account takeover problems to fester for years.
I'm not against a subscription at all. I have the means and desire, but there needs to be a show of good will in both directions. With only an "f u pay me" ultimatum, I can find something else for my idle time.
I understand YouTube's actions, to be honest. People on the Internet want everything to be free, but at the same time they don't want to see ads or allow cookies. But servers aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Storage isn't free. Writers, moderators, web developers and sysadmins don't work for free. YouTube (and any other site) needs to generate revenue somehow to stay up. If we don't want to pay with money, that's fine, but we need to pay with something. Nothing on this world is really free...
That makes sense in theory but I'd have to ask how YouTube have been continuing in its current state for 18 years already.
I understand YouTube's actions, to be honest. People on the Internet want everything to be free, but at the same time they don't want to see ads or allow cookies. But servers aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Storage isn't free. Writers, moderators, web developers and sysadmins don't work for free. YouTube (and any other site) needs to generate revenue somehow to stay up. If we don't want to pay with money, that's fine, but we need to pay with something. Nothing on this world is really free...
That's their problem, not mine.
Adguard on my laptop, Revanced on my phone and SmartTubeNext on my tv.
That's their problem, not mine.
Adguard on my laptop, Revanced on my phone and SmartTubeNext on my tv.
That's fine, but it will be everybody's problem when the Internet shifts in the future to a paid model because we didn't want to pay for the stuff. Again, nothing on this world is really free, and we will end up paying, either with money, with our privacy, or seeing ads, but be sure we will pay with something. This "everything-is-free-and-good" model won't last long into the future...
That makes sense in theory but I'd have to ask how YouTube have been continuing in its current state for 18 years already.
Bleeding Google out of money for all those years, that's for sure. But now more people use YouTube, more content than ever is being created every day, and more bandwidth, storage space and processing power than ever is needed. YouTube won't shut down, that's for sure, but if they don't find a way to support themselves then this "watch-everything-for-free" model will end some day, we'll see. It's like ads on OTA TV, you don't pay for accessing the channels per se, but you pay by watching ads. The point is that you need to pay with something if you don't want to pay with money directly.
That's fine, but it will be everybody's problem when the Internet shifts in the future to a paid model
The Internet already is a paid model.
The Internet already is a paid model.
Not with money, no. You're seeing and using Neowin right now and you didn't pay a dollar, that's my point, that's why they need to show ads and do other "annoying" stuff. You can see any 4K YouTube video without paying money. You can use Gmail without paying money, and so on with 99% of stuff on the Internet. You pay with other things, but not money. But if we all start blocking those things, they will demand money, make no mistake. Do you think Neowin (or any other site) runs on a cloud on the sky? No, they need money.
The Internet already is a paid model.
It certainly is.
If you want to know who funds the internet then look no further than your monthly ISP bill.
I understand YouTube's actions, to be honest. People on the Internet want everything to be free, but at the same time they don't want to see ads or allow cookies. But servers aren't free. Bandwidth isn't free. Storage isn't free. Writers, moderators, web developers and sysadmins don't work for free. YouTube (and any other site) needs to generate revenue somehow to stay up. If we don't want to pay with money, that's fine, but we need to pay with something. Nothing on this world is really free...
It's a take or get taken world out here.
Revanced + WSA or Adguard either way you lose
Is google struggling for money?
No, simply greed.
YouTube can go f**k itself as far as I'm concerned.
I'd pay them $2 a month for an ad free 1080p experience, for $3 I'd expect a premium app, 4k etc.
It's not like they're investing billions into making content, they're just being greedy while trying to shove as many ads down our throats as they possibly can.
I'd pay them $2 a month for an ad free 1080p experience
If you have a VPN you can do that.
Youtube Premium in Turkey is ~$12/yr USD
If you have a VPN you can do that.
Youtube Premium in Turkey is ~$12/yr USD
Tried and tested?
If I manage to buy a sub through VPN, do I have to keep using one while watching YT?
Tried and tested?
If I manage to buy a sub through VPN, do I have to keep using one while watching YT?
Yes. Tried and tested.
You only need the VPN for the purchase or topping up the account
I think i might temporarily relocate to Argentina or India for a few mins a every year and take out a subscription 
. Might get myself a little "family plan" and add my mate and brother to it also. /s
The cost in the UK is not justifiable imo. I don't care for YT music and whatever. I just want to watch content creators. I would rather donate money to them, buy merch or whatever to support them. Maybe if YT made stores or whatever and took a cut I'd use that. But i'm not paying them the full whack they want here in the UK to watch a content creator i like on top of donating to those content creators somehow. Its far to much they are asking. I can see allot of content creators falling foul of this as others wont donate or buy as much from them due to costs maybe being spent on YT premium. It also sucks that even if you have YT premium your going to see in video advertisement's unless you use sponsor block. It's not like paying for premium is going to require you to never use an add blocker.
YouTube, let me pay 25 bucks/year for no ads (and nothing more, just no ads, I don't need the rest of the features Premium offers) and we got a deal.
Oh, you don't want that? Oh well, back to adblocking, then.
The day I can't watch Youtube with adblock anymore is the day I stop using Youtube entirely. I wouldn't mind ads, if they weren't so obnoxious in nature. Always 10 volume levels above what the actual content video was in loudness, always pop into view when you least want or expect them and always for some s**t I absolutely do not care about, like some crypto dudebro shilling his pyramid scheme.
Like, for example, I don't mind all the ads LinusTechTips has in their videos. They are just there and sometimes I skip them, but mostly I just let them roll. And they drop those for their own merch mid video so seamlessly they aren't annoying at all. Like they take a sip out of their water bottle and carry on as side banner appears for it on their store.
As for paying for Youtube Premium, ahaha lol, no. Google is hoarding everything about me and they still want ME to pay THEM? For 7,19€ a month and also require me to be logged in. Because currently I use Youtube without using account. Entirely. What kind of joke is this?
Why have I not seen any of these efforts by YouTube to block ad-blockers? I use Firefox with the Enhancer for YouTube extension which blocks ads on YouTube.
Why have I not seen any of these efforts by YouTube to block ad-blockers? I use Firefox with the Enhancer for YouTube extension which blocks ads on YouTube.
Using Firefox with uBlock Origin and I've been getting the occasional popup, already flushed and refreshed my lists. Then I read your post about YouTube Enhancer, which also blocks ads. I completely forgot about that one. Turned the blocker off on that with just uBO doing the work, seems to be nuisance free now. Guessing one interfered with the other, crossing fingers that's what it was.
As someone who has never paid for cable, turns off the TV when it's just background noise when I visit family, never uses the radio, and has exhaustive ad blockers on my browsers, this will literally mean I no longer use YouTube. I refuse to ever see, hear, or be near ads in any capacity. I will pay for Sirius radio and I buy the TV shows I want to see on Blu Ray to avoid them but nothing I have ever seen on YouTube has been produced at a level I believe warrants payment.
As someone who has never paid for cable, turns off the TV when it's just background noise when I visit family, never uses the radio, and has exhaustive ad blockers on my browsers, this will literally mean I no longer use YouTube. I refuse to ever see, hear, or be near ads in any capacity. I will pay for Sirius radio and I buy the TV shows I want to see on Blu Ray to avoid them but nothing I have ever seen on YouTube has been produced at a level I believe warrants payment.
I'm okay with ads and generally have no problem with them - I'm not okay with them being pushed hard down my throat and literally hijacking videos making them impossible to watch without being extremely annoyed with constant interruptions, ads that last up to three minutes (without the ability to skip them) and so on...
And all of that is coming from the company that's literally tracing my every God damned move on the Internet in order to shove more and more ads down my throat.
Thanks but no thanks - Google and YouTube can block whatever the f**k they want, as far as I'm concerned it's f**k off big time.
As someone who has never paid for cable, turns off the TV when it's just background noise when I visit family, never uses the radio, and has exhaustive ad blockers on my browsers, this will literally mean I no longer use YouTube. I refuse to ever see, hear, or be near ads in any capacity. I will pay for Sirius radio and I buy the TV shows I want to see on Blu Ray to avoid them but nothing I have ever seen on YouTube has been produced at a level I believe warrants payment.
There's plenty of stuff that's worth watching.
But I agree, no payment from me either - until I can share my subscription with 5 of my friends or something, regardless of physical location.
uBlock Origin isn't blocked
Stop restricting the subscription to a single household, THEN I'll pay. Until then, feel free to GTFO.
I'd pay £2 / $2 a month for this, no more
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK