digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Firefox Extension TubeStop Stops YouTube Ads

chrisfinke.com — Since YouTube is only serving ads through the player on their main site, and not on the embeddable/syndicated player, and TubeStop works by replacing YouTube ’s native player with the embeddable version, you won’t see any ads when you’re using TubeStop.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • obeezy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+100FF will forever be my hero. Always first to the punch.
    • KyleGoetz, on 10/10/2007, -37/+15***** you and everyone else. How inconvenient are these ads that you are willing to risk YouTube having to shut down because it cannot remain profitable since everyone blocks the ads?

      YouTube is a great service, Google's policies regarding YouTube are fair, and you all just want to take a piss on Google! This is like, "Hm. I really like this product. It's great, and I hope they keep making it. Therefore, I'm not going to buy it." Ridiculous!
      • 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.
        • 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.
      • djphatjive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13They don't pay the people that are making them rich. Screw them!
      • 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.
        • louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Agreed. Once in awhile people will post screenshots where there is a funny or ironic ad that goes along with a story, picture, etc. It always takes me a minute to get those, because even when I don't have an extension blocking ads, my mind does it after so many years of exposure to internet ads.

          The other day my adblock list was wiped clean. I didn't notice for a few hours until I went to a site where the ads were actually in the way of me clicking a submit button.
      • 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, -8/+4youtube will not shut down, it is owned by google. google can handle this. besides, youtube managed to exist for a long time without any sort of ads.
        • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5right - then they became popular and needed to... pay for bandwidth, servers... you know. chump change!
        • 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.
      • 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?
    • 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.
      • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Cool. We'll add you to the list of "willing to pay subscription fee to access certain websites"
      • 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."
        • nhprm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"unobtrusive" is a word that you, drakin, need to look up. It doesn't mean absent.
      • louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your light bulb analogy doesn't make sense. It's more like cable. You pay comcast to watch tv networks, but they still air ads. Of course you have no obligation to watch the ads, you can change the channel or skip them using your dvr. I'm all for not having to watch the ads, and you're under no obligation, just think about your analogies more.
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1If anything is going to cause the demise of the free internet, then it's probably going to be Firefox. Every site should just ban the browser from viewing their site.
    • CannibalTom, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1God, Satan, Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, bless Firefox.
    • livevil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Enrique Iglesias - "Hero" plays in the background...
  • MikeonTV, on 10/10/2007, -8/+84I never got the banner ads without the extension. Anyone else with me?
    • Taomyn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Me neither. Maybe AdBlock or NoScript is preventing it somehow.
      • adude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Yeah, I thought that too. But even with AdBlock disabled, I still don't get the banner ad.
        • djphatjive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4its a new thing. only a few have it so far
    • beatryder, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0I don't see them either. I use Linux as my OS though, do either of you?
      • planksconstant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Your OS has nothing to do with whether or not you see ads.
        • pooptaster, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0You're probably right, but it is easy to change content based on what OS the browser supplies to the site. One example: on Google Video while running Windows, you have to download the google-player video, but if you use Linux the download link points you to an avi file. There's no reason they couldn't turn the ads off for certain systems (though I don't see why the _would_ do that)
    • 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.
    • Kinjiru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3RTFA.. and the update section as well as remembering the ads were not aimed at every video either.
    • eyefork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Youtube took down the ad on the one the article links to
  • darkkosmos, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Site when down after 51 diggs, nice idea but I think it will get blocked by youtube somehow.
    Download link : http://www.chrisfinke.com/files/downloads/addons/tubestop-1.2.xpi
    • cfinke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Still up, must have just been a blip. The site has survived the Digg effect before, so I don't expect it to go down.
    • TKn00b, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3AdBlock Plus has been blocking Google ads for ages (among others). I don't see how this would be any different.
      • cfinke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Are Google ads built into a Flash video player?
      • Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I dont see a problem with in video ads
        as long as they are relevent and/or not HAHA or WINAFREEIPODWITHFLASHYSEAZUREBACKGROUNDSANDCOMPLETELYJAVASCRIPTBASEDSOYOUCANTBLOCKFLASHORREMOVEIMAGES
  • cmilki, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3These guys do know that you're forced (fully) to watch those ads right? If you don't want to view those ads, you can install this extension or *gasp* not click on the tiny pop under!
  • geekchic, on 10/10/2007, -23/+8Don't forget that if YouTube is unable to make money from advertising it will simply be forced to switch to a subscription model and you will need a credit card to view the video clips.

    Blocking adverts like this is akin to cutting your nose off to spite your face.
    • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3"Don't forget that if YouTube is unable to make money from advertising it will simply be forced to switch to a subscription model and you will need a credit card to view the video clips."

      In which case someone else will come along with a "YouTube Killer" that doesn't have ads. After all, YouTube didn't have ads for the majority of its existence, so it's not like they're necessary.


      "Blocking adverts like this is akin to cutting your nose off to spite your face."

      No, it's akin to cutting the adverts out of a magazine to spite the advertisers. Are you willing to try to convince me that cutting adverts out of a magazine is somehow morally wrong?
      • 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.
        • HPCELarry, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2They don't make money off my viewing of the adds, they make money from me clicking on them, or buying the product. i never do neither, so why waste my time?
          • huskerdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is not correct. The content providers make their money on a per-view basis, not click-through.
        • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Why would any company operate a website at a loss?"

          You mean kind of like Wikipedia, which brings in no revenue and relies on donations? What about regular Joes who pay for web hosting and don't put up ads? There are plenty of sites out there that lose money, and they're there because the sponsor has some sort of information or point of view that they're willing to pay to make available to others.
        • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't think you can compare Youtube bandwidth costs to Wikipedia. Try again.
      • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Your rebuttal stinks. No matter WHO comes along with an alternative, you will NEVER see a free model. Here's the reality - big websites need money to operate, plain and simple. Furthermore, blocking adverts is NOT akin to cutting adverts out of a magazine to spite the advertisers. There are small similarities, but it ends there. 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.
        • 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.
      • 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.
        • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, if you can figure out a way for Youtube or any other video site to make money without ads and without subscription fees, then I'm sure almost any university in the country would be willing to mail you an honorary MBA.
          • 30thElement, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Take the model of "Maddox" or "Red vs. Blue". Maddox accepts donations and has an in-site store. Red vs. Blue also has an in-site and out-of-site store, and offer special content for a small fee. No ads, lots of money.
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Brad: The fact that you and I don't know the answer does not mean that it does not exist.
    • PJBovoNox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Soon as Youtube needs a subscription, people will flock to a free site.
    • m3mn0n, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Your analogy makes no sense to me, but being a web developer and site creator, I am firmly against AdBlock, NoScript and other similar tools that block any and all adverts. Yes, some are malicious, and people do have the option to whitelist sites they want to support, but if you give someone an inch, they want a mile.

      Nobody wants to stay with that inch to they limit bad sites and unblock the good ones, they usually always keep their whitelist empty and deny web developers hard earned revenue. Could you image if your TV receiver promoted software that would skip all commercials?

      I know I may be dug down for saying this, but I want AdSense, AdBrite and etc to setup a way for site publishers to identify who's blocking their ads so they can in turn block their site/content for people who choose to be freeloaders.
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Advertising doesn't work? Find a revenue model that does. Or go out of business. See, getting your content out there is your own problem. It's not anybody else's obligation to view your content. You think that they should be grateful to you for giving them free content, when in fact you should be grateful to them for giving you an audience for your content.

        It is not your readers responsibility to keep you in business. That's your own problem. If you can't stay afloat without selling ads, and your readers block your ads, then you fail and go under. Simple. Find another way to get your content out there. One that works.
        • 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.
        • 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.
      • alexanEmpire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You have a point. The existence of the world wide web, much like television, is dependent on commerical purposes.

        To all you other readers out there....Do you really think that the www was developed and built up for you to use it as a powerful learning tool, get your banking done easier, and your entertainment/convenience? The answer to that is...sort of, but whoever created it obviously wants a return on their investment. In other words, the www is solely created for commerical purposes. To take away the ads (even though there are some quite malicious ones) and other commerical aspects would be like taking the bottom can of that lovely pyramid made of soup cans (that you see at the grocery store). The whole thing would collapse.
        • 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.
          • pesil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0And you are not old enough to remember when Internet contents sucked!
          • andy2na, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1having fly sounds buzzing, and epileptic flashing colors on websites is *not* content.
      • 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.
      • cmize, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just because you put up a website doesn't mean you're entitled to profit from it. If cramming ads down the throats of your site's visitors is the only way to make money then go do something else. I won't use a browser that doesn't have an adblock feature and the fact that you bash noscript means you are into annoying javascript ads that try to circumvent normal adblocking techniques.
    • andy2na, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2theres enough "noobs" in the world who wont ever touch these kind of addons (tubestop, adblock plus, ie pro, etc) to generate enough revenue for these sites. stop crying, if you want to be one of them, don't use the addons. simple.
  • directsun, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Anyone have an example of a video with ads so I can compare? The example on the site doesn't seem to have them.
  • code2joy, on 10/10/2007, -15/+17cool so i can't full screen my videos anymore! ff rox.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7I love how you got buried for pointing that out. Fanatic FF fans can't accept that this may not be the best solution I guess.
    • Moskie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Digg him down for being a dick if you like, but he does have a point.
    • 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.
    • dogstylee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35Watching Youtube videos fullscreen is like watching Lego animation.
  • cocoamix, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Incidentally, YouTube videos do not start automatic play in Safari unless they are in the focused tab.
  • 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
  • DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9I hate ads as much as the next guy, but you do realize that if you piss off YouTube's sponsors and they split, you'd find yourself staring at a subscription fee? Which would you rather do?

    I'd rather ignore ads than pay for a site I access maybe once a week.
    • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Why would you pay for it if you only access it once a week?

      If the ads don't take off, and they don't find a way to make money, then they go under and somebody else pops up in their place, perhaps with a business model that actually works.

      Evolution, man.
      • 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.
        • 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.
        • Amablue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have one, but it involves a nigerian prince and email.
    • DokGonzo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Oh please, YouTube is owned by Google FFS, they can throw money at it like it's nobody's business. Infact, they make millions through text ads on Youtube already, I really don't think they are losing money on it. But this kind of in your face advertising will only piss off users and make them more likely to switch to a competing service.
      • DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And how would that competing service make a profit without either charging you or throwing their own 'in-your-face' ads at you?
        • 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.
          • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That certainly has a lot of potential but does require a framework to be developed that does not cause resource contention between the video decoder and the research application. I suppose it is possible to watch the CPU and if it hits 80% sleep the research app until it is a bit quieter. There are other problems like laptops which slow down their CPUs will take a real battery life hit if they are ramped up.

            Sadly, the more likely result will be the ads actually embedded into the video file that is served.
    • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That would require foresight and a reality check.
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • solistus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0This theory is kind of blown out of the water by the fact that YouTube removed ads, huh?
    • wounded625, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Go check out vimeo.com
      Its has better quality videos and is a lot nicer with less ads
    • jawbreaker4fs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pirate bay video service FTW!
      • 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
  • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6I can honestly see this being the future of advertising. With more and more people getting their TV either via Bittorrent or via a DVR, traditional forms of advertising are on their way out. The 30 sec commercial won't be around for much longer.

    TV stations have a few choices then: 1/ Scrap ads and charge more to access the station. 2/ use product placement in the shows (think Joey in friends talking about how Coke is hes fav drink) 3/ Use these forms of banner ads during shows. 4/ Scrap the station and go for paid downloads via iTunes etc.

    Out of the 4 options I think I prefer the small banner ad on the bottom of my video. It doesn't make me wait for my content like current commercials. I(t doesn't make me pay ragardless of if I watch or not (subscription) It doesn't punish me if I sit around and watch TV all day (iTunes download) and its doesn't mess up shows with stupid product placement.

    I don' know if other countries have this but in the UK we have a red button on our TV remote. When you click it, it brings up advcanced features. this could be used to bring up more info on a banner ad as it appears on your screen, if you wanted to know more.

    Free TV has to be subsidised by ads. It all depends on how those ads hit you. to me this is the best option.
    • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Why on earth is my last comment getting Dugg down? There is nothing offensive or insulting in the post. Its simply my opinion and what that opinion is based on. If you don't agree with me then post a reply telling me why, don't just mark it down.

      It does seem like newer digg users just auto mark down anything they don't agree with. Guys the idea is to bury the poinless, insulting stuff. You then tackle the stuff you don't agree with head on with your own opinions and facts. that way we all get to see both sides of the story.

      If you just digg down everything that isn't to your taste then digg becomes nothing more that fox news
      • DiscoLando, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Because you're not advocating having your cake and eating it too. Some digg users don't quite understand economics.
  • blaaguuu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26In related news, http://youtube.com now forwards to http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com
  • masterstanf2k, on 10/10/2007, -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!
  • TheSabre, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2This extension won't do anything to hurt Google. I don't know why people are so worried. IE still holds the market share and it will for a while yet. Less technical people tend to continue using IE as their daily browser. I use it to test, although I use IETab more. But those are the users that will still see the ads, click the ads, and pay for YouTube.

    If 30% of users use Firefox, and 50% of those Firefox users install this extension, then only 15% of users will be blocking YT ads. Until FF overtakes IE (which I think will happen eventually), I don't see how this extension will do much harm to Google profits or their ability to run YT for free.
    • chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FF users are more tech-savvy, and hence less loyal to their browser. Other browsers will pop up, preventing FF from overtaking IE, at least until Microsoft's OS market share diminishes (which it slowly is). Opera?
      • dbzer0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't care so much for ff to overtake IE. As long as it gets smacked down and we don't have to suffer crappy sites anymore, all is good.

        If people want to use IE and not have access to anything else than basic browsing, it does not bother me. People are willing to pay 200$ for an inferior OS as well so stupidity still abounds...
  • OctavioOrtiz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0commercials are out. Product placement is in. Instead of paying youtube, companies should be talking to the masses and trying to get them to push their product. a coke bottle here, a nike sneaker there and BAM! advertising without pissing people off.

    casino royale anyone?
    • bloodorange, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'd rather see a video ad or overlay, then see my favorite character in a tv show open a coke and say "hmmm that's the best soda I've ever had". Of course they won't be all that bad, but just saying its a very delicate area. Did anyone see that stupid Microsoft logo, while James Bond and Denise Richards were diffusing the bomb while traveling over 100 miles in an oil shaft? Now that's product placement!
  • ramsinks.com, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1hm , I don't see them anyways.. no add-ons . just FF and a mac.
  • FyberOptic, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Everyone is such a whiny baby about ads. You want free content, but you don't think that somewhere along the line that it has to be paid for. Using ***** like this just hurts the best video website out there. Thank goodness Firefox sucks too hard to ever become the best browser, so that you crybabies can't financially hurt the web any worse.
  • sygma, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Any greasemonkey script to do the work?
  • 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.
    • Pandalume, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Many of the smaller websites, my own included, don't really have the option to pick and choose the ads that are shown. We can remove some of the worst offenders and some do a better job of it than others. If we want to make any money from our ads, however, then we need to show a few that we would probably rather not.

      My site is supported mainly by subscriptions so I can be a little more selective with my ads, but a lot of other good sites rely on ads that they would probably not display if something better were available.

      That said, I still block pop ups everywhere I go and refuse to have them on my site...
  • tristan55555, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ads have yet to be fully instituted into videos and they will only be appearing in syndicated (ie, NBC, Comedy Central, BBC) official videos.
  • 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.
    • masterbw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You see? All this ADs and USER-base need to be balanced.
      There are people who are willing to receive ADs for FREE contents, there are people who are willing to PAY for PREMIUM contents.
      There are also people who want NO ADs for FREE contents.
      A balance has to be there to reach equilibrium. If YOUTUBE is entirely free, how are they going to make money to pay for the services, the labor, etc?
      But if they put ads, or charge for subscription fee, some customers may leave, if they charge too much, lesser customers will use it, then they would lose money again.
      It's all about balance.
      • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The truth has no place here. Digging you down.
  • 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.
  • MaximegalonInfo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hold on, digg users said this couldn't be done when it was first announced...

    http://www.digg.com/tech_news/YouTube_to_Launch_TV_Style_Ads_This_Summer (see first post, has 67 diggs as of posting)

    Could someone on digg have posted bad information? That's unpossible!
    • jawbreaker4fs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Uh.. I read that and it seemed to have an implicit /sarcasm tag.
  • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1whats a YouTube?
  • cozinator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The embedded player also allows you to skip ahead to any point in the video without buffering, which is not currently implemented on the main site player. So, this is actually a good extension I wish I'd known about before.
  • zushiba, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Whyisfirefoxbanned???
  • chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Big "who cares." ~ Dr. Cox
  • mrsneakypat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Adblock Plus...
  • in2deep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This should be interesting to see how this pans out!
  • georgtsipot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually the guy had a row with the abp developers and they included his site in the EasyList. That's not cool at all, cause the site has no ads, and the ABP had no business of blocking it. After the digg and slashdot entries, they decided to unblock it.
    • georgtsipot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Sorry, that was meant as a reply to the whyfirefoxisblocked comment above
  • nakp88d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And then people are all clueless as to why websites start charging for "premium services".Youtube or no youtube,every site needs to have some source of revenue to sustain itself,even digg does,the least they can do is make ads unobtrusive.
  • leksdraven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sadly, this is part of what makes some people hypocrites; if YouTube was YOUR company, wouldn't YOU want ads like these (which help pay for production costs) to remain untouched. Hopefully, this will not affect the rest of us.
    • cmize, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If YouTube was my company I wouldn't rely on a lame business plan. Ad supported websites suck and if they all went away tomorrow (yes including Digg) I wouldn't care. I'm tired of being marketed to all the time.
      • leksdraven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Be careful of what you wish for...

        /eerie Twilight Zone music fades
  • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I can't wait until someone creates an AdBlock Blocker. How sweet that'll be

    COMMENCE BURYING!
  • 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
  • rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1add on seem to slow web page from coming up i noticed and unhooked everything, not sure if this was the problem exactly.
  • Fhwqhgads, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Eat that, ***** youtube ad *****!
  • rodgy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't understand this frenzy to block ads. I actually look at the ads, they're part of the whole thing, and they are related, sometimes interesting.
  • TechBharat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1YouTube is no charity. They have given you an option to opt-out of the overlay. Then why this blanket ban on ads?. It just kills a promising new industry. All those who hate ads , please let know how to make money on video otherwise.
    • mackofee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I still can't find any video with ads. Can you point me there?
  • Tailboom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I think that youtube found this out and is now not letting videos play that have tubestop enabled. I have tried 4 times back and forth with tubestop enabled and disabled. youtube will only play when tubestop is disabled :(

    i tested using this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyJrFKwjrc
  • webheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I can't even fathom why this is an issue for you people. The bar is tiny and you can get rid of it if you want. They have a right to make money off their site if they want and they tried adding it to the videos in the most unobtrusive way they could. It's amazing how whiny some of you are.
    • dogstylee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because we just want to browse the Internet without BUY MY ***** BUY MY ***** BUY MY ***** all over the ***** place. Boo-hoo they need cash, they're doing fine right now without them.
  • 3mpire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I tested w/ this video and it worked great! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
  • supersaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2There should also be an addon to block all comments made on YouTube by people under 16
  • getisboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0this stops the play all feature from working properly. it's not that the vids don't start playing because i know that that's what this does. the vids just don't open in the first place.
  • bob369963, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Checked Mozilla's extension/add on page. Found no mention of it in there. I would not recommend installing it.
  • taylorcarrigan, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1These ads really don't seem like a bad thing to me, especially if it means that content providers such as NBC, ABC, Fox, and other major networks will put full-length content on YouTube eventually. They're not any more annoying than the ads that show up on the bottom of TV shows from time to time. If it means free TV shows and other content, even if it takes awhile, it's worth it as long as they don't become any more obtrusive than they are currently.
  • cmysites, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I thought it was a good attempt by Google to put ads in videos - the funny thing is I never saw it tested out. Instead I read about it on business 2.0 and then subsequently found this article showing that they had already taken it off youtube because as a result of this extension.
    --
    Max ... Out!
    http://www.cmyos.com - free online operating system
  • SquireToad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If this is so good, why isn't tubestop listed on Firefox's extension page?

    I have no problem with blocking ads of any sort. (Screw 'em, I don't need to watch anything that badly that I should suffer thru a steenking ad!). But if it works, it should be on the "official" addon listing. And it isn't.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.