digg

Join DiggAbout

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

YouTube Adding 30-second Ads

gizmodo.com — Google has apparently decided to add 30-second advertisements before videos on YouTube beginning next year. Hopefully they'll come to their senses before they actually follow through with this...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • chiliu78, on 10/17/2007, -14/+596They better not or I am gonna waste my work hours on a different site.
    • le0pard, on 10/10/2007, -23/+20Like digg?
      • AndyVenus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+42Half of digg is YouTube.
      • foooey, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6digg has ads?
      • CATSCEO, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Dugg for avatar.
        • carleethian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2i'm pretty sure his avatar is two thumbs pushed together
          • honeymustardn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wearing a thong? Yeah, must be!
      • iChainsaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually...they never did any of the options they listed. i see no ads like they described, just banners on the side of the video.
        • brokendaylite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow... If you would actually READ even the description you would see that this doesn't start until next year.
      • Smartkidz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dugg for reference to avatar that i didn't notice. :)
      • Impeller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0SAme here...
    • Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -20/+10Meh, as long as it's not ridiculous I wouldn't mind. Proper: making you watch a commercial randomly before a video like game trailers does. Ridiculous is making you watch one every time you load a video up. What's worse are news sites that have the advertisers seizing control of the site's content. Such as those ads that would cover content and won't go away even if you click on it. Or the ads that automatically link you to another site after a few seconds browsing the desired site (ahem like Myspace).
      • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1As long as it is there, I will mind! Advertising is paid by us, every time we buy something. We pay to pollute our minds, disinform ourselves, create artificial needs, program our unconscious with neurotic thoughts/beliefs/desires/fears.
        The day there are video ads before videos on youtube, I stop going there forever, and I predict that The Pirate Bay video site will become the most popular site on Earth after google: http://thevideobay.org/
        • Gordin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So The Video bay won't have ads? I highly doubt it and in fact think it will be full of ads just like TPB
        • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2ebay does not need video ads. Google decided to add them to make more money.
          The Pirate Bay does not need to be as greedy. We shall see!
        • Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Where should I begin? Someone already said TPB has ads already. Okay how about advertising isn't paid by us. It is paid by the advertisers. They pay the site content providers who for the most part provide a site for free. Just be glad youtube has not resorted to a subscription program like IGN's garbage.
      • OmegaNine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*Cough* Firefox+Adblock plus *Cough*
    • mojaam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23You won't be the only one, in fact that's why I don't watch cnet, cnn, msnbc, dl.tv videos.

      So what's the next best alternative to youtube in case they ever decide to pull this?
      • foooey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Hopefully The Pirate Bay will launch their video site soonish, which will kill youtube anyways, even if they didn't put ads on their site.
        • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Pirate Bay won't host illegal content on it. They'll do exactly what they do with their image hosting site - "uncensored.... provided it's within Swedish law". And Swedish law won't let them make an untouchable version of youtube full of copyright material. It'll get uploaded but they'll get DMCA'd and they'll comply.
      • r0ryb0ryalis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16http://stage6.divx.com is growing site with much higher quality than YouTube. Hopefully this will spur a jump in it's popularity!
        • BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
        • linkinpark342, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Stage 6 is great and all but their search is really unwieldy (that the right word? i'm going to pretend it is)
        • linkinpark342, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Stage 6 is great and all but their search is really unwieldy (that the right word? i'm going to pretend it is)
      • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I could see myspace video shooting up in popularity. It is pretty similar to Youtube, doesn't have ads (yet), and is already pretty popular.
        • potofgravy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure MySpaceTV was created with help from google or something. If Youtube does it I'm sure MyspaceTV will folow.
      • suriyou, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Veoh isn't bad. :/
      • ttamshadbolt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1LEAVE... YOUTUBE... ALONE!!!!!
      • doronster195, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I haven't seen ads in the beginning of cNet videos recently. Which is good, I can't stand watching the same ad over and over again. Hasn't anybody thought of inventing Ad software that won't play the same advertisement more than twice or thrice?
    • fluxion, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1430 seconds, indiscriminately, is ridiculous. smaller->no ads should be used for short clips. im sure google has the technology to determine ad length based on the length of a clip.

      30 seconds in front of some free bbc special is fine. 10 seconds in front of a 5 minute clip is fine. for anything shorter they shouldnt have any ads....or if possible, 5 second ads or something.

      edit: ahh, from what ive seen below it doesnt even interfere with the video playback. that's fair
      • zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"im sure google has the technology to determine ad length based on the length of a clip"

        division? ratios? i hope they invent it soon!
    • craftyguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Craftyguy adding Youtube.com to hosts file.
    • OGTL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11If they actually do that, i'm removing all of my content and never using the site again. Are they turning into CNET?
    • shinynew, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10How about streaming an ad as soon as the video ends?
    • Juntistik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I nominate stage6
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow, I read the Title as "30 second abs", as in those lame commercials that have taken up 50% of paid advertisement slots on TV.
    • OmegaNine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I dont understand you mentality....How are they supposed to keep the site up if they are just bleeding money. They have find a way to make money off this or it will go away. Whats 30 seconds really?

      That said I do think they should sell 10 sec spots for the smaller videos though. watching a 30 second add on a 20 second video is a bit retarded.
  • ionut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+184That's inaccurate. Gizmodo links to a news "posted on 23/04/2007". Meanwhile, YouTube already launched the video ads and they're not that obtrusive:

    From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/technology/22goo ... :
    "The company said late Tuesday that after months of testing various video advertising models, it was ready to introduce a new type of video ad, which it said was unobtrusive and kept users in control of what they saw. The ads, which appear 15 seconds after a user begins watching a video clip, take the form of an overlay on the bottom fifth of the screen, not unlike the tickers that display headlines during television news programs. A user can ignore the overlay, which will disappear after about 10 seconds, or close it. "
    • Wandel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35I can live with that.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I think I'd rather have a five-second fullscreen ad than those overlays - they drive me ***** nuts. Not only do they cover the actual content, but the TV ones at least are always bouncing around and otherwise are very intrusive.

      The only problem is getting them inserted in the right place (during a cut, between scenes, etc) in the shorter clips. But they're not doing it that way so it doesn't matter.
    • s0lid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0well that looks better, at least its after the clip. everybody will hate google if it is BEFORE the clip and it's not only 5 sec long.
    • shazzb0t, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7I think I'd rather have zero ads. What crap.
      • JeremyBanks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Yes, damn them for trying to make it profitable!
        • BenKenobi88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Uh...yes. Damn them for trying to make it profitable. It's Youtube, where people just share ads among each other...there shouldn't be ads in the videos...ads all over the rest of the site should be plenty enough already.
          I'm sick of reading through all the stupid Youtube comments while watching poorly compressed videos...I'll stick with official video sources from now on.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22How is covering up the bottom fifth of a video with an overlay "unobtrusive?" And, why do they have to put it on TOP of the video? Can't they just put it underneath?
      • thebellmaster1x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...Please explain how it's possible to put an overlay underneath something while still keeping it visible.
        • hexydes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Uhm, because you are working in a medium that does not have a fixed resolution format?

          I think what the poster meant was that instead of overlaying the ad on the bottom of the video (and thus covering up content), just move the ad outside, to the bottom/underside of the video (thus NOT covering up the content). This is actually a very good idea.
        • thebellmaster1x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1AH, underneath position-wise. Sorry, I was using Photoshop earlier, and my head was still stuck thinking about layers. Heh. Nevermind.
          • techmaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"On MY head? How could I be dropped onto my OWN head?" - Thurman Merman
          • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, even using (in Photoshop terms) an overlay layer would be preferable to a solid ad covering the content.
      • WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Am I just being pissy, or don't other people find intrusive ads on the bottoms of screens, whether on network TV or YouTube, really annoying? Stupid network TV corner logos are bad enough. But if marketing morons are going to cover 1/5 of the screen with visual chatter, they're spoiling the whole viewing experience. Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't art museums cover the bottom 1/5 of paintings with ads for laundry detergent, SUVs, or Tampax? Gee, why don't colleges put ads in the classroom on the bottom 1/5 of the whiteboards? Maybe ambulances should carry ads for life insurance on the sides, like McDonalds, "We're carrying a dying passenger - and loving it!"
        At this rate, soon Idiocracy the movie will be real life.
    • coolcash2005, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ya, I like how a story that has a misleading/mistaken title, and even SAYS so in the article, got over 1000 diggs...
    • fruitbomb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yes I can confirm this I heard on TWIT with Leo Laporte
    • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The TubeStop extension disables those ads, as well as stopping videos playing automatically, so you can use tabs without hassles.
      http://www.chrisfinke.com/addons/tubestop/
  • plizard, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3yay 30 more seconds that i wont click on something
  • Ascendancy5, on 10/10/2007, -21/+6I really hope Youtube doesn't sell out. I mean, putting ads on the site is one thing, but having it in the videos? That just sucks.
    • DarkShroud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26They already did sell out, to Google.
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Sold the company" is not the same as "selling out". Youtube is the same now as it was before the Google acquisition, other than having a Google-sized team of lawyers and theoretically better ad targeting. Selling out would have been to charge for uploads and make it only possible for the rich to get stuff online (much like TV) or something of that general nature.
        • saisumimen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Are you kidding me? A small company selling itself to A GIANT CORPORATION is, in fact, selling out. You may think nothing changed but in fact if you were an avid youtube user before the merger and you watched closely you'd know the changes that went on like deleting videos on a whim for fear of copyright infringement (remember the 14 year old that posed as a copyright holder?) . . . and now this. It was bound to happen; youtube just got too big.
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They can't sell out of they're spending the money they earn, or overspending it :-( Youtube's been a great free site so far, and I think they could make more money through deals with Directors and Musicians rather than through ads, but I don't mind much :D
  • thomasknowland, on 10/17/2007, -10/+388youtube? Oh yeah, I remember them.
    This comment will make more sense in two years.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Exactly, they're going to get creamed by the competition that doesn't do video ads. Hell, I don't watch live tv now b/c of the advertising. My Tivo makes a nice bleep bleep bleep everytime a commercial comes on.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Brilliant.
  • ProKid, on 10/10/2007, -14/+14I really hope they don't. Thats one of youtube's best features. Its funny you don't notice that you don't have to watch advertisements until they threaten to put em in.
  • lockedon, on 10/10/2007, -24/+1thats gay... There going to turn into all the other gay sites.... eff.
    • AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2They're
    • Darcy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5NOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT ANOTHER GAY SITE! There's already far to many of those)-:
    • technoredneck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7On behalf of myself and other gay men everywhere, this is not our fault, I swear.

      We're too busy causing natural disasters, bridge collapses, and terrorist attacks to set our sites on something as petty as YouTube.
  • bpapa, on 10/10/2007, -3/+46Buried as inaccurate. Geeze, you'd think Gawker's bloggers would do some fact checking first.
    • netburnr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Exactly why I don't click anything coming from Gizmodo.
  • banq59, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2You didn't see this coming when they got bought out? Corporate greed FTW!
    • alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There wouldn't be a youtube without corporate greed.
  • KompressorV12, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31the biggest and most successful websites are always the ones with the least intrusive ads (facebook, google, YOUTUBE), the rest always go down the drain (myspace, yahoo, msn) etc... I think this is one of the stupidest decisions they could have made, it will be interesting to see what kind of competition arises from this now
    • freepizza48, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yahoo is actually doing very well for themselves.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Their ads also aren't particularly obtrusive.
    • JeremyBanks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Facebook's ads have been coming more annoying of late. It's starting to piss me off.
    • sparcher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Oh you're right. Nobody uses Myspace.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your comment has to be the most idiotic ever. MySpace had MUCH more traffic than Facebook ever will. Yahoo is doing pretty damn well too. So your entire point is invalidated by your own examples.
      Everyone who dugg this up should be ashamed of themselves.
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Just to clairfy why your comment is so ridiculous...For your examples fo sites that are going down the drain, you listed the TOP site (yahoo), the second most visited site (MSN), the 4th (youtube) and the 6th most visited site (Myspace), while your examples of sites that are the most successful are #3 (google) and #8 (facebook). And before you talk about how the three "failing" sites are seeing traffic decreases...no they aren't. Only MSN is falling, and that has far more to do with Live taking some of its traffic.

        Even to you that has to be pretty funny.
  • hydrodev, on 10/10/2007, -27/+3i wont be putting adds on the videos uploaded to my site! http://www.rocksites.com So use it as an alternative if you like
    • ORBAT, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Nice try.
      • hydrodev, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0i dont get it.
      • hydrodev, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2your right how dare i compete with the likes of google. We should all just let them own everything with out question why bother trying? ***** it, i got hits off my reply, what do i care?
  • dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6030 seconds ?
    lol
    no one will want to use youtube anymore .....
  • rmxz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3The article writes: "Hopefully they'll come to their senses before they actually follow through with this..."

    I hope they don't. If they start inserting abusive ads, this will create the opportunity for newer, better video sites on the internet. If they don't video sites'll stagnate just like browsers did for a few years after AOL bought Netscape.
    • alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2... for newer, better video sites that grow money on trees?
  • counter22, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5If they do force users to sit through 30 second ads before watching any and all videos, it will be to their own demise. I just moved off of Comcast to a MythTV DVR and you know the first thing I noticed? Hehe allright, I don't have to pan through their damn banner ads anymore at the bottom of every screen on the program guide...ah the freedom from the advertisements...
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1What does Youtube have anything to do with Comcast?

      RTFA
      • platypibri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Uh, they both have ads? See, he compared a situation with obtrusive ads with one that is proposing obtrusive ads, and implied it might have the same effect.
      • Bananas21ca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2RTFC
    • counter22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's about the ads......Comcast added advertisements to the program guide. YouTube is adding advertisements to the videos.
  • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3827 seconds too long
    • Gustomucho, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4830 seconds too long
    • TheWorm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Realisticly though, if they are going to do this. A 1 or 2 second ad while the video is buffering would be acceptable. 30 seconds though is basically saying "***** you" to the people who make it one of the top visited sites on the internet. I can't imagine them really deciding that this is a good idea. I know I wouldn't use it.
    • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not only that, theworm, I for one, realize these web sites NEED to monetize it somehow. 30 second commercials doesn't cut it.
  • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Even though it's inaccurate, and linking to a 5 month old article, I do recall seeing somewhere that ads would only show if the submitter chooses to put the ad there, (and earning a share of the ad revenue) - much like AdSense, and much more like Metacafe.com
  • drakethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Its odd that they go with in video ads before even attempting to put their own google ads on the actual website. Is google admitting that their actual site ads generate less revenue?
    • TheClone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Perhaps it's Google being proactive and realizing that text ads work great on text search engines and blogs but a video based website has little incentive to click through a text ad? It's not exactly rocket science, that's saved for the Google X-Prize.
  • Quidam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7No. Just No.
  • exomni, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12YouTube starting sucking balls around the time Google bought them and Viacom started pulling videos.
  • foooey, on 10/10/2007, -8/+49RIP YouTube 2005-2007
  • image0434, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I'll go somewhere else if they do...I should not have to watch some crappy ad I didn't click on to watch some crappy video I did click on
  • GodIsntReal, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3If they ever did someone would just make a firefox extension to skip right by them anyway so i could care less.
    • shabazdavisjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Couldn't. You couldn't care less.
      • robzthird, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2That always pisses me off. Why the hell do you people say "I could care less". WTF?
  • TheDiceMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I best get my 'tubesocking' on
  • JohnnyRad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3***** weakkkkk!
  • shovelready, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6all the other video sites will be like "watch videos here!! WITHOUT THE ADS!!" and then youtube will be down the drain..):
    • svivian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well that would be inaccurate, since they all have banner ads. I would've thought they all make a mint off those.
  • mcman1223, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1maybe if they could make it so that you only saw an advertisement every 10 or 20 videos you watched...other than that, i would NEVER have the patience for something like that. that was why i got into youtube in the first place! gimped!
  • gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Looks like Google, owning both, decided they want to consolidate the sites by burying one. Which in turn will give Google video a boost, and they can then absorb You Tube into Google video. I could be wrong, but there's always an end game, and Google isn't stupid. They know what this will do to You Tube's customer base.
    • ItsAlexLolol, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1how true... i never thought of that. but couldn't google just do it the easy way and just shut down youtube?
    • Foamator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're right that Google isn't stupid. "Stupid" would be burying one of the sites, especially Youtube.
      They're not gonna do this to phase out Youtube.
  • EndPop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Here are great alternatives. Veoh, Bliptv
    • skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Veoh isn't good for short clips because the playback is choppy.
    • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, Veoh's playback can be choppy because it's better video quality, so the file itself is larger. If Veoh would just have lower quality and higher quality options, it would really take off.
  • qbelek2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i cant believe that they will force me to look at 30s of junk just to see that wasn't the clip I was looking for. Now repeat that 20-30 times a day :-|

    5-10s to enough to say that your toothpaste is the best so make it short if you have to feed us that *****...
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+01. Buy Youtube
      3. Place 30s intrusive ads before videos
      4. ?????
      5. PROFIT!!
      • MrPig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51. Find Digg post.
        2. Fail to count.
        3. Post generic comment.
        4. ?????
        5. Buried!
  • jerrolds, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Id rather they give us an option for either a 30sec ad or an icon overlay of the advertiser/brand over the entire video...i guess that wouldnt be so bad
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How about no to either? Those both sound pretty *****.
  • ATLien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+410 Seonds or 15 seconds I would be ok with, but 30 is alot. Most videos are not even that long.
  • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That'll be fine. Some ambitious start-up will follow the old ad free format and become the new you-tube.
  • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5YouTube, I just don't think this relationship will work. I feel the need to see other video sites. You just don't please me like you used to do before the advertisement. I think I'm breaking up with you. No don't cry, there will be other suckers to watch your videos...
  • offthewagon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know if it would be selling out so much as staying liquid. Before Google took over, they were relying on venture capital and assorted loans just to pay for bandwidth. Their "perceived value" was the only thing keeping it running.

    Of course, perceived value has a relatively short half life. Sooner or later, money has to be made.
  • brendangenius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4YouTube, as killed off by Google. I'll use another site like Veoh.
  • DarkJC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is why blogs like Gizmodo are the scourge of the internet. Look at all the comments taking this as gospel. They're refering to a 5 month old news post people, look at one of the top comments explaining why they're inaccurate.
  • bigteebo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are tons of YouTube clones out there. If YouTube does the 30 second ads, they will flock elsewhere, a la Friendster.
  • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19***** NO!
    I am not waiting 30 secs before I can watch Chris Crocker cry...
  • code2joy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no thanks
  • Topher06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Google apparently isn't making enough money, so this makes total sense. Whether is video ads, or something else, I am thankful Google is looking at new innovative ways to sell us viagra and tampons. I am so happy Google has opted to "Do no evil" as their corporate policy, I would hate to see Google becoming an agressive greedy intenet pimp daddy. I am hoping that Yahoo and MSN quickly follow suit so they won't get left behind we need more advertising on the web, it should be ubiquitous and more prevalent then the crappy free content being globally offered.
  • MrM1yagi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8THIS IS MADNESS
    • MrPig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2THIS IS INACCURATEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    • IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2*kicks article into pit
  • mr_bako2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They're going to have to come out with some motivation to put up with these ads, there are other video sites out there that can be just as good... so unless we get cool new features in exchange for this, and upgrades to the service etc, then i could use one of those along with everyone else.
  • nrose101, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Everyone give me a break. How do you expect companies to pay for bandwith, etc. Advertisments are a way of life. Deal with it.
    • crlake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Are you kidding? Google has nothing BUT MONEY! It's flowing out of there ass. Why else would they be trying to go to the damn MOON -- for the joy of exploration? No, let's try, to carve f*cking advertisements on the dark side, so we here on the planet earth can enjoy looking at a permanent neon sign of "Best Buy".

      Don't try pulling that "server space and bandwidth" crap, because the guys that started YouTube seem to manage fine without ads for several years. So sing another song.
      • platypibri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2My other song would be called "Finite Venture Capital". Somebody pays for it. Always.
      • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Put the ads around the video, dont make me wait 30 seconds to watch the video. I try not to buy anything that PISSES ME OFF for 30 seconds.
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No.
  • darkmaxprime, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1i just love it when big companies make the stupidest decisions...it just cracks me up...ROFL!!!!
  • Digisphere, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1530 sec add for a 10 sec clip of someone getting kicked in the nuts? Somehow I don't think thats gonna last very long...
  • nubnub, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6youtube= fail
  • lol24, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0i guess i have to pirate them now. oh wait....
  • snugglebear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Awww. Isn't it nice, google finally realized what a waste of 1 billion that was.

    Youtube has never made enough money to cover bandwidth costs. I never understood the unbelievably high perceived value of that site. Now google realizes it has to earn money somehow.
  • Soulicro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But.. then people just wont use it anymore, probably.
  • 2Bnor2B, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hold on here..
    If I post content to YouTube and people watch it, don't I deserve a cut of the ad revenue.
    • Hollic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This man is onto something...

      (I'm sure there's a disclaimer when you upload content, but I can dream, damnit.)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
  •  

    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.