←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 7 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 1.095s | source | bottom
Show context
mcdeltat ◴[21 Jun 25 01:21 UTC] No.44333721[source]▶
I recently stopped watching youtube altogether and surprisingly haven't been missing it. And I used to watch a LOT (like hours per day) of youtube, mostly quality educational/scientific content. But ultimately you'd be surprised how much you don't need in your life. And side effect is no more ads. If someone sends me an occasional youtube video to watch, I'll take a look, but otherwise no engagement with the platform.

I'd highly recommend everyone try reducing their intake of passive entertainment like youtube and redirecting that time towards more creative or mindful pursuits.

replies(12): >>44333759 #>>44333869 #>>44333888 #>>44333939 #>>44333942 #>>44334056 #>>44334471 #>>44334568 #>>44334750 #>>44334783 #>>44334859 #>>44336871 #
stickfigure ◴[21 Jun 25 02:05 UTC] No.44333888[source]▶
Or just pay for it? I have my whole family on my plan. Nobody gets ads. It is a bargain.

You're right, I could probably finish my motorcycle build projects without videos. But why??

replies(15): >>44334073 #>>44334088 #>>44334144 #>>44334344 #>>44334406 #>>44334447 #>>44334475 #>>44334803 #>>44335046 #>>44336056 #>>44336525 #>>44336900 #>>44338528 #>>44338880 #>>44349185 #
solannou ◴[21 Jun 25 04:16 UTC] No.44334447[source]▶
I'm barely sure that the long term strategy of YouTube is "more ads". The premium account won't be always ads free
replies(3): >>44334628 #>>44334703 #>>44337840 #
1. motoxpro ◴[21 Jun 25 05:10 UTC] No.44334703[source]▶
This is a big misunderstanding of the business model. The price might go up, but there will always be a tier with no ads.
replies(2): >>44334792 #>>44341124 #
2. pclmulqdq ◴[21 Jun 25 05:34 UTC] No.44334792[source]▶
Unfortunately, the way ads work, the people who pay to avoid ads are inevitably the ones worth advertising to. The Nash equilibrium is that every user sees ads.
replies(2): >>44334871 #>>44382018 #
3. tshaddox ◴[21 Jun 25 05:47 UTC] No.44334871[source]▶
That sounds off to me. I would think that the people who pay to avoid ads are very likely to jump to ad blockers if the ad-free subscription ceases to exist. Not to mention that they’re going to be very unlikely to convert on advertising.
replies(2): >>44336778 #>>44338254 #
4. pclmulqdq ◴[21 Jun 25 11:47 UTC] No.44336778{3}[source]▶
You would, but most people who pay are not technically savvy enough to get the right adblock, keep it up to date, etc.
5. StackRanker3000 ◴[21 Jun 25 15:22 UTC] No.44338254{3}[source]▶
The paid service would of course have to offer something else other than “no ads” if they started showing ads in it

The type of people who have already indicated that they have disposable income, and are willing to pay for a service, are more attractive to advertisers than people who are known to have opted for a worse experience for free

6. ◴[21 Jun 25 22:15 UTC] No.44341124[source]▶
7. motoxpro ◴[25 Jun 25 21:34 UTC] No.44382018[source]▶
This is why the price goes up.

If the LTV of a "good" user (e.g. user who buys things from ads) is X, you price the non-ad tier at X + Y. Y is the premium you pay for not wanting to see ads.

So you're right, but also wrong, in that you can extract EVEN MORE money from the user you were talking about through a non-ad tier.

Companies (Meta, Google, etc) get better at advertising -> LTV goes up -> non-ad tier goes up