They operated at a loss just for this reason. Years of loss revenue to trick people into using the service and building a user base only to pull the rug out from under us and go ad crazy. They did this to themselves, we got used to being ad free so now they think we will just roll over and accept the ads. Too bad there wasn’t a way to sue companies for operating at a loss on purpose to artificially create a market then fundamentally change the product after the fact but as it was a “free” service there is only one stakeholder.
I am not sure if this applies here as they technically kept the service the same as it was before. Bait and switch is more different and not over a long time.
I think, dumping is the first part of what we discussed, then there’s the second part where you can set an arbitrary price or do other unfair things because you’ve become effectively a monopoly.
But the public opinion clearly showed me that I shouldn’t interfere with this discussion 😅
Also, operating at a loss allows to throw away the contenders that have to somehow profit to survive. Well sometimes those scammy services don’t get to the point of actually getting money (kind of like Reddit)
But I guess this is what to expect from any free service, very few of them are run as a form of charity, or at least I think so
You do know that there were static ads on the pages, right? And the whole aggregate viewer data thing? They were never producing the service for free; they had regular old advertising and metrics to sell to fund it.
What they didn’t have were garbage intrusive unskippable video ads before and during the video I wanted to watch.
YouTube used to host and stream videos for free, without ads, for years.
They operated at a loss just for this reason. Years of loss revenue to trick people into using the service and building a user base only to pull the rug out from under us and go ad crazy. They did this to themselves, we got used to being ad free so now they think we will just roll over and accept the ads. Too bad there wasn’t a way to sue companies for operating at a loss on purpose to artificially create a market then fundamentally change the product after the fact but as it was a “free” service there is only one stakeholder.
“bait and switch” is the technical term.
I am not sure if this applies here as they technically kept the service the same as it was before. Bait and switch is more different and not over a long time.
You are technically correct. The term for Google was doing is “dumping.”
I think, dumping is the first part of what we discussed, then there’s the second part where you can set an arbitrary price or do other unfair things because you’ve become effectively a monopoly.
But the public opinion clearly showed me that I shouldn’t interfere with this discussion 😅
Also, operating at a loss allows to throw away the contenders that have to somehow profit to survive. Well sometimes those scammy services don’t get to the point of actually getting money (kind of like Reddit)
But I guess this is what to expect from any free service, very few of them are run as a form of charity, or at least I think so
People think everything online is free. But everything one does online has a cost and we don’t want to pay it. So we got ads.
Happy Cake Day
And? You have no idea what their costs are that much video storage and bandwidth. Do they ever delete videos or just keep adding more and more.
Yeah and I don’t give a shit either. Not my problem.
If it’s not economical for them they can shut it off whenever they like.
That’s what they’re doing right now. What is your point?
I received this thing which costs money for free for years and I am entitled to continue receiving it for free.
(If yt was publicly funded or essential service I would agree. It is not.)
You do know that there were static ads on the pages, right? And the whole aggregate viewer data thing? They were never producing the service for free; they had regular old advertising and metrics to sell to fund it.
What they didn’t have were garbage intrusive unskippable video ads before and during the video I wanted to watch.
And times change. No one is paying top dollar for a static ad.
What they also didn’t have was positive cash flow.
And decent video quality, do we want to go back to the days of 240p?, cause that’s the only resolution a static banner ad model can support.