This delay isn’t exclusive to Firefox, it’s in any browser where a user has enabled adblockers including in Chrome. Disable the adblocker and this delay magically go away. This was done on purpose.

  • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    To say the quiet part out loud: Bullshit

    Google may find that their only option is to paywall YouTube. Too many of us will prefer to pay creators directly rather than letting Google take a cut. And YouTube is not the only game in town.

    I admit that I’m pretty much done with YouTube anyway. Their unskippable mid roll ads that interrupt videos mid-word have become obnoxious enough that many creators I follow are jumping ship and advising their viewers where to find them.

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google may find that their only option is to paywall YouTube.

      They already have Youtube premium. But $14/month is an insane price. I refuse to believe that is anywhere near the typical ad revenue they get from people. That is more than many streaming services.

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not that I support anything their doing, but managing YouTube has to be an order of magnitude more expensive to operate than a streaming service. I actually think they could get some sympathy if they took more of a Wikipedia approach and we’re more open about the costs to operate YouTube. However much we might hate Google, YouTube is practically a public good in the way it operates and the world relies on it.

        • Pirate_lemmy_arrrrR@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How could hosting other people’s work and at most giving them a cut of the ad revenue be more expensive than

          A. Paying for streaming rights to other people’s work. B. Creating your own works And C. Paying to host all of the above. ???

          Unless you’re saying that the hours streamed from YouTube is so vastly more than any streaming service that it out costs all the other costs Netflix etc has in licensing and content creation.

      • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not, because it’s a lot easier to get someone willing to pay anything in the first place to pay more than it is to convert a free user into a paying one. So as long as a yearly rise doesn’t lose them more in profit they’ll keep increasing the price it until it does.

        Though I really doubt that on a platform as huge as YouTube halving the cost to $7 wouldn’t get them twice the paying customers almost instantly, because $14/month is simply ridiculously expensive.

      • rob299@bookwormstory.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d love to see a plan where you just pay to rid of the ads, but YouTube is past YouTube, they would rather everyone pay YouTube premium as is.

        • C_M@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They had that plan over here. But they killed it just before the war against ad block started (it was around half of the price of premium)

    • thejml@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where are they going? Most of the ones I follow are along the “this sucks, but it’s the only real game in town”, so I’d be interested to check alternatives and see what’s there.

      The big problem with any social or content centric platform is that new ones are only useful for consumers if there are creators and only useful for creators if there are consumers.