What is Digg?150 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+100FF will forever be my hero. Always first to the punch.
- MikeonTV, on 10/10/2007, -8/+84I never got the banner ads without the extension. Anyone else with me?
- dogstylee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35Watching Youtube videos fullscreen is like watching Lego animation.
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27The ads only appear on those videos that big corporations have paid for with an account on YouTube, e.g. NBC. Individual user videos do not have ads.
- Taomyn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Me neither. Maybe AdBlock or NoScript is preventing it somehow.
- jason469, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21YouTube will end up becoming infested with ads that are embedded. A new website will take it's place until they become big like YouTube and another company with a lot of money buys them out. The replacement website will then be slapped with lawsuits. The replacement website will then put embedded ads in and the cycle will continue.
- blaaguuu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26In related news, http://youtube.com now forwards to http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com
- Anomis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17"Update: It looks like Google has removed all video ads for now. I’ll update this post if I come across a video that still has them."
This script is not needed atm - parax, on 10/10/2007, -9/+22Why do I have some kind of moral obligation to watch people's ***** advertisements? I don't watch TV advertisements, I don't read magazine advertisements, I don't look at billboards, and I'm not going to waste the bandwidth I pay for by loading advertisements. If they want to keep the service profitable, come up with a less intrusive business model. I pay for my ***** bandwidth, which means I get to determine what I use it for. It would be like paying for electricity but every time I turn a light on I have to listen to a sales pitch.
- Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14If you don't like Youtube, you have no reason to go there, much less block the ads. If you do like Youtube, you should have no reason to not support them in order to keep them alive at no cost and only very minimal inconvenience to yourself.
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11It's you
- adude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Yeah, I thought that too. But even with AdBlock disabled, I still don't get the banner ad.
- PJBovoNox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Soon as Youtube needs a subscription, people will flock to a free site.
- rootstyle, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Yes, without Youtube where would I see kids lipsyncing to top40 songs, and of course those wonderful video blogs.
- gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'll gladly watch ads on YouTube as long as they don't become too intrusive. The only reason I use AdBlock (Plus) is that many websites made the decision to make many of their ads eyesores that I couldn't stand. I honestly don't mind having well-placed, discrete ads. I've even found some useful stuff in advertising links.
- sirbeta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I agree more or less, but everyone seem to find the very concept of them receiving ads as some sort of offensive gesture from the company. Sure, popup ads are annoying and such, but really, these aren't even that obtrusive. Free services use advertising for a reason. Google might be able to back it up with their money even if it's not turning a profit, but how long will that go on?
- planksconstant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Your OS has nothing to do with whether or not you see ads.
- djphatjive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13They don't pay the people that are making them rich. Screw them!
- pharekyz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6They managed to exist for a long time by burning millions in venture capital without turning any profit. They need to start making money sometime.
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Dude, chill. The people using this ad blocker and ANY other ad blocker already automatically ignore ads as it is. They're not losing anything from us. And we're avoiding potential spyware/malware spread via ads.
- djphatjive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4its a new thing. only a few have it so far
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5right - then they became popular and needed to... pay for bandwidth, servers... you know. chump change!
- strazz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Who is going to pay the hosting and development bills then? Why would any company operate a website at a loss? I don't care if it's Google or some guy in his garage. I'd say you do something like Gamespot.com, everything is free if you have ads and if you pay the small subscription then you get everything ad-free.
- Tyr7BE, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Yes you can. Just don't install the extension. You just have to put up with ads in your video. To be frank I'm surprised you couldn't figure that much out for yourself.
- MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8So Kyle, do you ever leave the room or change the channel when an ad comes on TV or Radio? Do you fear doing so will make TV and radio disappear?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Youtube took down the ad on the one the article links to
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Do you really think that the www was developed and built up for you to use it as a powerful learning tool,"
-----
Yes. That was the original purpose of ARPANET. Obviously you're not old enough to remember when no websites anywhere had ads. - Skeithy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is why we can't have nice things!
Ads need to exist or 90% of the websites out there wouldn't be able to stay afloat without charging money for their content. Youtube needs money, its the most popular video site on the internet, they need LOTS of money. Its going to boil down to ads vs paying google X amount of money a month. Any youtube clone that pops up will have the same problem, when they get popular they need money. - jawbreaker4fs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Either that or "wait until the pirate bay puts out their video sharing service with copywrited content and unobtrusive ads which I'll get for free."
- i208khonsu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Re: "They don't pay the people that are making them rich. Screw them!"
Yes they do. This is an add sharing product like Revver only available on an invite only basis. Again this is a product used to bring in companies that want to advertise for their content and revenue from this advertising is shared 50/50 with the partner.
This is in no way changing YouTube other than adding an additional service for content providers should they be invited and interested in the revenue sharing program. - Moskie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Digg him down for being a dick if you like, but he does have a point.
- masterstan, on 12/06/2008, -0/+3I think all sites that use in-video ads need to adapt this.
It really is non-intrusive.
If the ABC player had this it would rock. I hate having the show stop for a full minute, having to click CONTINUE, etc.
Go GOOGLE! - KOSmurfy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The advertising revenue model doesn't work? Did you pull that our of your ass? Your entire post reeks of someone who thinks they're entitled to free content simply because it's the internet. The thing about adblockers that gets to me is their unwillingness to make their adblocking detectable by websites. They're perfectly happy to block ad revenue from websites, but heaven forbid someone restrict their website to those willing to watch ads. It's that kind of ***** double standard that makes the entire adblocking community look like a bunch of whiny spoiled brats.
- DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4http://www.whyfirefoxisblocked.com
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4strazz: How about they figure out another way to make money? The notion that advertising is the only revenue model that can possibly work is a flawed one to start with.
- Kinjiru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3RTFA.. and the update section as well as remembering the ads were not aimed at every video either.
- Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you want someone's service then you shouldn't be going out of your way to avoid giving them any revenue. If YouTube didn't have advertisements, they'd go out of business and no one would be happy. Unless they charged, which would drive away most of their user base. Still, very few people are happy. Rather than charge people or go out of business, they put in little unobtrusive ads.
YouTube provides a good service, I'm not going to gyp them just because of a little ad. - KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9Cool. We'll add you to the list of "willing to pay subscription fee to access certain websites"
- Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have one, but it involves a nigerian prince and email.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3ads are not evil
and its no reason to commit copyright infridgement
google is a company
they need to make money
as long as they dont start using javascript ads with annoying flashy backgrounds(these are the worst kind of ads because they dont use plugins to begin with) or ones that cover half the page that you need to find the button that says close this window or x because they dont want you to easly exit out of the ad
its fine with me - HPCELarry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 I have a right to pick what content i want on my computer, and what i don't. I don't click on adds anyway, so it doesn't lose them any money.
- DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you happen to invent an online business model that does not include subscription fees or advertisements, let me know. We'll be monumentally rich by the end of the year.
- Felekar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Youtube is getting advertising on their site because companies like Viacom know they NEED to be on it. The amount of exposure they get there is massive. But they're greedy bastards. So they need to be sure that you don't see their content for free. To see their stuff you need to watch their ads, that's the way they see it.
Personally, I think this is a good compromise by google/youtube. Besides, with firefox you'll likely be able to always figure out a way to block the ads if you don't want to see them. I mean, if you're like me, you just ignore ads anyway. I even make it a point to look away from them, so advertising most things to me is a moot point.
But really, we're reaching a point of ad over-saturation. We have them lining our freeways, flashing in our face as we walk down the road, coming on every few minutes during a show, and even talking at us while we're urinating.
http://felekar.blogspot.com/2007/08/talking-toilets.html - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't think you can compare Youtube bandwidth costs to Wikipedia. Try again.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Here's the reality - big websites need money to operate, plain and simple."
And Advertisements and subscriptions are *not* the only two models for making money.
"With magazine or traditional newspaper advertising it's FAR more difficult to judge the effectiveness of your ads. With online advertising however, you can get a daily report quickly, easily, and then discern the effectiveness of that channel. Company X can see after one week that if nobody's viewing or clicking their ads and then bail."
And if Company X doesn't see any increased revenues from magazine ads, they can likewise bail. True, the timescales are slightly different, and the data are a bit fuzzier, but it's not like companies are unable to discern the effectiveness of traditional ads, and pull them if they're ineffective. - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about trading your spare CPU cycles, à la Folding@Home? I'll let you do the legwork and be monumentally rich. Just cut me a check for $1 million for the rights to use this idea. Thanks.
- jawbreaker4fs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pirate bay video service FTW!
- misteral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Realistically a small fraction of users would be using blockers. Ad blockers have been around almost as long as online ads, and no one has really screamed about them harming their revenue streams.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3As I mentioned in a previous post, how about trading you their content for some of your spare CPU cycles. Then they could sell time on their enormous grid supercomputer to researchers.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is