this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
976 points (97.8% liked)

memes

10334 readers
2369 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Ah yes that makes a lot of sense. Googles war on adblockers seems really expensive but we don't know the numbers maybe it's still cheaper.

[–] EveningPancakes@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The HLS integration we offered definitely had a premium attached to it as well as an additional cost to the CDN that required the integration to live on. So it's not cheap.

It is weird that Google, with it's infinite pockets, hasn't pushed a stream stitched solution all these years until recently.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

YouTube serves probably dozens of formats/bitrates, and has spent years tweaking how it ingests, transcodes, and serves videos. Adding in-stream ads might have been a bigger engineering task in that environment. Depending on the percentage of users/viewers avoiding ads, it might not have been worth the return.

[–] h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As I know they transcode every uploaded video to their preferred format. They could use the same infrastructure for the ads. But maybe it's really too expensive.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)