YouTube's latest idea: server-side ad injection

[pcprogrammer]

I'm hearing reports that many users of Android-based TV's and various other devices are having a horrible experience. Not sure if this is tied to this garbage YouTube is trying, with injecting ads into video streams, but it's causing video to lock up while the audio keeps going.

Brilliant.

Nowadays it seems normal that with new versions of software it functions worse than before. Take VLC, used to work fine with the recordings I make on my satbox. Now with the almost latest version of Linux Mint and VLC, when I skip forward to jump over commercials the sound starts to have dropouts for a couple of seconds before returning to normal proper working. 

And as a Linux user you are now discriminated against by some of the streaming providers. Like Canal+ (Canal digitaal) with their live tv in a browser. Worked fine until sometime last year. Called the service desk and got the simple answer "well you have to switch to windows then, don't you" 

They block it working on Linux because it would be to easy to create pirate copies of the content. 

[BrianHG]

I'm hearing reports that many users of Android-based TV's and various other devices are having a horrible experience. Not sure if this is tied to this garbage YouTube is trying, with injecting ads into video streams, but it's causing video to lock up while the audio keeps going.

Brilliant.

It is possible to do stream insertion properly, however, to prevent bugs, most likely these parameters need to be met, otherwise, you need to modify the players to adapt, or as you stream, you need to decode and re-encode everything:

1. Insertion must be done on and between master key frames.  (Note that with .h265 unlike .h264 has multiple key frames, so you need to be on a master all key frame replacement location for both video streams)

2. Source resolutions and pixel packing formats need to be identical.

3. The selection of CBR vs VBR encoding needs to match between the 2 streams.

4. Version of encoding codec needs to match between streams.

Note that some players, especially mostly software ones may be more resilient to variations of my 4 points above, however, small set-top-box TV players may be using mostly a hardware mpeg decoder meaning they might not have the processing gusto to add code to deal with randomly stitched together streams.

If TVs with built in YouTube players begin freezing all the time, like some from the big guys like Sony & LG keep on freezing, YouTube coders on their head end have a huge issue as they might forced into live transcoding (huge dedicated real-time processing for each video) for all their distributed videos for such TVs.  Otherwise, massive freeze-ups, most likely which may cause memory leaks on such TV players, might begin bricking some TVs... Permanently...

[shapirus]

might begin bricking some TVs... Permanently...

Since when has this been a problem? I bet that if it happens, YT will tell that it's done to improve customer experience and to protect the users' security and save the planet. The majority of the users will happily swallow that.

[madires]

YouTube's latest idea is to display an ad when you pause the video: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1fd051l/i_paused_my_video_and_this_showed_up/

[SiliconWizard]

Great!

But that's still grandpa's methods.

They should push ads full screen to people's devices even when they're not playing YT videos. That's the future. The buggers are still being a little conservative, much to shareholders' dismay. Come on!

[madires]

YouTube confirms your pause screen is now fair game for ads (https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/18/24248391/youtube-pause-ads-widely-rolling-out)

[Bryn]

I tell you, YouTube really has an unhealthy obsession with ads, and nevermind the time they were telling people to turn off their adblockers.

As long as I keep uBlock Origin updated regularly, everything will be fine (even though I don't bother with YouTube as much).

[tggzzz]

I tell you, YouTube really has an unhealthy obsession with ads, and nevermind the time they were telling people to turn off their adblockers.

As long as I keep uBlock Origin updated regularly, everything will be fine (even though I don't bother with YouTube as much).

Yoootoob's obsession with ads is entirely healthy - for its balance sheet.

Google is one of the poster boys for "enshittification" (a word of the year in 2023).

Adverts can be ignored.

More of a problem is the low quality of 99.9% of the videos, which would be better in text and don't require moving pictures.

Add that it is impossible to "speed read" a video to find out it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. I can skim a page of text (400 words) in 10-20s, speech is at best 60wpm, so that's a >20:1 slowdown. My remaining life is too short.

[SiliconWizard]

While this is just a cash cow obviously, ads may be a plus to push people to dial down their video watching time. It's very time-consuming and relatively unproductive overall, with few exceptions.

Yes, the fact you can't really "speed watch" most videos is precisely because most are made to force people to watch them entirely to maximize ad revenue (and favor ranking).

But I don't blame people trying to at least cover the cost of making these videos, at least those that are interesting, even when the point could be made in much shorter time.

[PlainName]

But I don't blame people trying to at least cover the cost of making these videos

You know, talking about the cost of making videos (and particularly uninteresting and uninformative ones)...

If they didn't make the viewbait videos they wouldn't have video making costs to cover.

(Edited to make the context very precisely defined for those that find it had to let go of a thought)

[Marco]

Google is one of the poster boys for "enshittification" (a word of the year in 2023).

I kinda disagree. Old youtube was simply too good to be true, yet if you pay for it or use ublock origin as long as it still works the site is still fine. Youtube search, interface and algorithmic recommendations isn't any worse than it has been (search has always been shit). For all the shit people give it for pushing shorts, the first line of shorts is two pages down for me... meh.

Things like smart TVs serving ads and cars spying on you is a far greater example of enshittification to me than an ad based services pushing a few more ads ... at least Google gives you the option to pay to get rid of them.

More of a problem is the low quality of 99.9% of the videos, which would be better in text and don't require moving pictures.

Hell is other people, that isn't Google's fault.

[fzabkar]

More of a problem is the low quality of 99.9% of the videos, which would be better in text and don't require moving pictures.

Add that it is impossible to "speed read" a video to find out it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. I can skim a page of text (400 words) in 10-20s, speech is at best 60wpm, so that's a >20:1 slowdown. My remaining life is too short.

So true.

[thm_w]

Google is one of the poster boys for "enshittification" (a word of the year in 2023).

I kinda disagree. Old youtube was simply too good to be true, yet if you pay for it or use ublock origin as long as it still works the site is still fine. Youtube search, interface and algorithmic recommendations isn't any worse than it has been (search has always been shit). For all the shit people give it for pushing shorts, the first line of shorts is two pages down for me... meh.

Just ignore him until he uploads something: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/idea-for-a-first-youtube-video/

But I don't blame people trying to at least cover the cost of making these videos

If they didn't make the viewbait videos they wouldn't have video making costs to cover.

Plenty of videos inherently cost money to make to be interesting, test equipment, tools might need to be purchased. If the video quality or lighting is poor it will generally get less views.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

[SiliconWizard]

But I don't blame people trying to at least cover the cost of making these videos

If they didn't make the viewbait videos they wouldn't have video making costs to cover.

That's what happens when people use partial quotes.

[The_Spectrum.A_idiot]

I tell you, YouTube really has an unhealthy obsession with ads, and nevermind the time they were telling people to turn off their adblockers.

As long as I keep uBlock Origin updated regularly, everything will be fine (even though I don't bother with YouTube as much).

Chrome will boot uBlock and Adblock at some point. so time will tell , we may need to switch to Firefox or other browsers at the end of the day.

[PlainName]

But I don't blame people trying to at least cover the cost of making these videos

If they didn't make the viewbait videos they wouldn't have video making costs to cover.

Plenty of videos inherently cost money to make to be interesting, test equipment, tools might need to be purchased. If the video quality or lighting is poor it will generally get less views.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Sure, decent informative videos are fine. I am talking about the content-free videos put up because the producers think the world owes them a living and, hey, look at Mr Beast - wouldn't mind some of that.

And the ones that have some possibly interesting thing but they won't spill the beans until 3/4 of the way through a 20-minute ramble. They probably learned that from the Daily Mail ("This is the one thing you need to.. blah.. blah" - can't mention it in the heading in case no-one looks at the article).

Of course, and as I note above, ones that aren't viewbait are not the ones I was talking about. Hence why I specifically mentioned viewbait ones as my targets 

[PlainName]

But I don't blame people trying to at least cover the cost of making these videos

If they didn't make the viewbait videos they wouldn't have video making costs to cover.

That's what happens when people use partial quotes.

The quote is to show exactly what I am referring to, as opposed to what you think I might be talking about. If you think it's out of context it doesn't matter because the entire context of what I am referring to is in that quote.

If you would prefer I would happily remove your nick from the quote so you're not associated with it. Main reason I didn't is because certain others complain that they can't scroll up to find where quotes came from.

[thm_w]

Of course, and as I note above, ones that aren't viewbait are not the ones I was talking about. Hence why I specifically mentioned viewbait ones as my targets 

But I don't blame people trying to at least cover the cost of making these videos, at least those that are interesting, even when the point could be made in much shorter time.

[PlainName]

Yes, as I repeatedly pointed out, I am wasn't talking about the interesting ones. The only reason I put the quote there was to show what I was talking about, which was the viewbait stuff.

Edit: just to please you I've modified the original. Maybe we can move back to actual youtube rants now.

[EPAIII]

Targeted ads by Google/YouTube? For a company that has supposedly gathered information on me for the past 20 or 30 years, they are doing a heck of a poor job of targeting me.

I am a male in an all male household but get bombarded with ads for women's underwear.

I have not owned a pet in over 50 years but get belted with dog and cat food ads.

I have absolutely no intention of buying a new or used vehicle but, you guessed it, ad after ad for them.

I have the best auto and home insurance company and have had them for over 50 years but am targeted with ads for more expensive insurance with less reliable companies.

The list goes on and on. I can only think that the biggest suckers that Google deals with are the advertisers who actually pay them for their "targeted" services.

And then, when I do want to buy something I have to dig and dig to get information on it. I am presently buying a cordless vacuum cleaner. Not a single ad. NOT EVEN ONE! I am not keeping it secret. I even used the Google search engine.

Likewise for other things that I have purchased. Oh, I do get ads for them, AFTER I make a once in ten years purchase of an expensive item.

Google has got to be either the worst or the most crooked advertisement agency of all time. One or the other.

[PlainName]

I wouldn't be so sure that they are failing to target you. I often go to Aliexpress to get some specific thing, and while I'm there I might browse some stuff and see something I hadn't realised I needed or wanted, or even knew existed (probably the cause of not wanting). Somehow, I come away with loads of stuff I didn't go there for.

Perhaps the 'targeting' is an attempt to get you interested in other stuff. You don't have a pet, but perhaps you'll start thinking one might be nice, and when you take the plunge you already know now where to get the pet stuff. It's the long game