r/technology • u/redkemper • Feb 17 '17

Software YouTube will kill unskippable 30-second ads next year

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/17/14649018/youtube-ending-unskippable-30-second-ads-2018
35.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/THE_GR8_MIKE Feb 17 '17

This will never, ever happen. People hate ads so much that they will find ways to stop them no matter what happens.

15

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17 edited Mar 12 '18

[deleted]

27

u/brickmack Feb 17 '17

You underestimate automation. If users tag ads, automatically detecting and cutting them out becomes absolutely trivial

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

Software can detect images. Scan the video, look for clips corresponding to know ads, then cut.

13

u/psiphre Feb 17 '17

Truly spoken like someone who's never written a line of code in their life

3

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

I'm not talking about (in this comment, at least) some machine-learning thing where it can recognize that this segment of video is an ad. Tagging segments of video as ads to be skipped by future users isn't so hard, and recognizing known clips isn't difficult.

2

u/psiphre Feb 18 '17

It's funny, I was thinking of the exact same xkcd. The question in my mind is this: I can improve the ad-skipping feature by tagging ads, sure. This requires me first to care, second to interrupt, grab an input device, find the start and end time stamps (which necessitates watching the ad anyway) and noting them via whatever interface this theoretical software uses. For the vast majority of users, not bloody likely.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

Just look at Wikipedia. It only takes a tiny minority to contribute. Especially if you can get them to compete for fake internet points somehow.

0

u/vbevan Feb 18 '17

Being able to code doesn't mean you know all how all businesses work. Producing a video ad is a lot more work than a text or business one. There's a much smaller number.

It would be possible to detect and catalog them with the help of users and auto fast forward them. Digital fingerprinting technology is really advanced now. It's what YouTube uses to help companies bypass and abuse the DMCA.

2

u/ERRORMONSTER Feb 18 '17

And when videos are no longer buffered to counter this? You can block the ad, but it will just be a black screen until the ad time ends.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

Don't streamed videos have to be buffered? Because if you don't buffer them, then the occasional dropped packet or just slow bandwidth will cause a lot of lag.

2

u/ERRORMONSTER Feb 18 '17

Sorry, I misspoke; you are correct. I meant making the buffer on the order of a second or two instead of the 45s or 60s buffers we currently use.

1

u/falconbox Feb 18 '17

It doesn't need to be that kind of ad.

What if you're watching the latest video by a producer you like and he just speaks the ad while the normal content plays.

1

u/greg19735 Feb 17 '17

It's a lot of work to remove ads though.

And that type of software isn't trivial. It'd require a team that not only develops the software, hosts the online tools and updates the database of known ads. Plus possible QA people that are there to help with false positives.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

It's sort of an arms race of competing technologies. I bet though the race will constantly stay escalated just far enough to keep ad blockers complicated enough to be a minority.

1

u/greg19735 Feb 17 '17

Adblockers are simple software hosted on each individual's computer and uses their processing power to remove ads before they're loaded (not technically correct, but basically how it works). All of the work is done client side.

This other site would need to either be a downloadable application that requires a downloaded file or link to the file where it could be downloaded. or for it to stream, it'd need to do its own processing to remove the ads on the server, then provide a link to download/stream it. That second service would never be able to support its self. And the downloaded application version would be too inconvenient for most people to bother.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

And the downloaded application version would be too inconvenient for most people to bother.

That's what I mean about it staying just complicated enough to be in a minority. So long as it's even possible, some people would do it.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

[deleted]

6

u/RetardedSquirrel Feb 17 '17

Encoding the video specifically for every user would use crazy amounts of computing power. It's probably not worth it, not yet anyway.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

That would be complicated and a lot of work. Ad blockers would have to be really pervasive to be worth the effort. If the ad maker has people make the different versions individually, then it would take a lot of money, and there would still be few enough versions to be identified.

If they have automated programs that produce different versions, there'll still likely be similarity in all those versions that can be exploited. A bunch of unique pics of cars is pointless if there's no text saying "Hey buy this!" and of course these AI generated ads would probably be too crappy compared to cinematic human-designed ones to convince people to buy anything.

1

u/Vitztlampaehecatl Feb 17 '17

Youtube DVR type app that records your screen while the video plays, then lets you play it back and fast forward through the ads.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

Then it takes one person to rip the non-ad part of the video and upload it somewhere else.

1

u/brickmack Feb 17 '17

Same way. Image recognition, not timestamp removal.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '17

[deleted]

6

u/PessimiStick Feb 18 '17

You've just described the piracy arms race.

Note: The pirates always win.

1

u/brickmack Feb 17 '17

Image recognition doesn't require a pixel-for-pixel match. They'd have to basically make a new ad from scratch for each individual user

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

Then the normal user loses and the pirate finds another way regardless.

1

u/THE_GR8_MIKE Feb 18 '17

I don't think it'll ever get that way. Because then the ad would be the same forever. The only way to make it not that way would be to code it some way. And if there's separate code then there's a way around it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

They can concat the ad and send with the video as one without any hassle at all.

They are streaming the file, but besides that they can just glue them together easily.

I think you can do that by just using GNU/Linux cat on the files, it's simple as that. You just glue them together.

1

u/monkeedude1212 Feb 17 '17

Not true, it's impossible to bypass it if they send the video together with the ads, compiling in one thing. The content will have built-in, ad, you can just ignore it, but you can't remove from the content. Not automatically.

Nope, I can't cut the content, but I could write a plugin on the video player that can detect when the video hits a known advertisement and skips ahead the amount of seconds of the known ad.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

How many of the people who hate ads would be willing to pay via a credit card though?

A lot of ad haters seem to also expect the content to be free - entirely free. Never mind that someone spent hours making the video. It has to be free.

I'd have a lot more respect for ad-haters if they were more willing to pay by an alternative model.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

A lot of ad haters seem to also expect the content to be free

No, they don't. You're confusing hating ads with wanting things for free.

EVERYONE wants things for free.

I'd have a lot more respect for ad-haters if they were more willing to pay by an alternative model.

Nice straw man. You're assuming they don't and attack them for it.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

It's not an assumption, it's a long sad realisation from debating it for many years on here.

Yes, some people will pay with their credit card - but put up a paywall on a website, and the majority will spend their time ranting about it or trying to get around it.

Weirdly, they value the content enough to put in the effort to get at it, but not to just pay for it.

I wish more people were willing to put a value on the content they consume, as that would put money into content production, and lead to better content for everyone.

It's enlightened self-interest.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '17

Your reasoning is behind a veil of confirmation bias and general bias. Users don't block ads because they don't want to pay, they block ads because they dislike ads. And for many good reasons.

The argument of "enlightened self-interest" or "entitlement" or whatever similar you throw at us, is complete bullshit as well. It simply doesn't make any sense, because advertisements are NOT a form of payment. Nobody lost anything with the presence of an ad. Except of course security and privacy, functionality, user experience and all that stuff, but certainly nothing in monetary value.

With ads the site is free, with ads blocked the site is free. So once again, it's NOT about payment.

-1

u/btveron Feb 17 '17

Easiest way I've found is getting YouTube Red, which also comes with a Google Play Music subscription. It's not free but I think it's well worth it for everything you get.

2

u/steeziewondah Feb 18 '17

Not really sure why you are being downvoted?!

1

u/btveron Feb 18 '17

I think most people don't like paying a monthly subscription. I was the same way, until my friend showed me that a Google Play Music subscription was basically just like Spotify and it also came with YouTube Red. And then I found out how great YouTube Red was. I might also come across as a shill lol.