YouTube adding a higher quality feed does not degrade the service. I don’t know how to put this in planer language.
Serving video is expensive. Serving high Bitrate video is extremely expensive. Storage costs have stopped scaling. Do you want them to provide a sustainable service or run at a loss to hike prices later when competition died? That’s not how YT operates. They are profitability and creator revenue first.
Just remember the real value of YouTube is the algorithmically feeding videos to people to radicalise them, sway and reinforce opinions, neuter activist movements and encourage discord between the lower classes all while serving up soma and pacifying others.
Propaganda is so more effective when it can be bespoke. That’s why all the billionaires have gone mask off; their new propaganda models of the last few years have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.
Susan wasn’t really that involved in politics as far as I could tell. I don’t know who steerz the ship nowadays. I have no idea what Larry Page believes, but he isn’t a high profile political figure. That article barely talks about Google.
Mistrust is good. But YouTube is a profit driven enterprise for all the public can reasonably tell. I think I haven’t seen a single thing I would attribute to malice or evil from them. Everything seemed either incompetent or justify able.
Google is an American defense contractor just like Anthropic.
Anthropic made a profit when the Iranian girls school was targeted with their Artificial intelligence as did Raytheon when the Tomahawk blew their bodies to smithereens.
You can be profit motivated and be evil they aren’t mutually exclusive. You see this repeated again and again. Cigarette companies, old fashioned American slavery. Unfortunately “evil” is very profitable.
The road construction department is integral to the military. They did profit of the Iran war too.
We live in an interconnected world where companies do more than one thing. A lot is dual use.
And there is little if any evidence of the US committing war crimes in Iran. Smart bombs aren’t wonderful contraptions that eliminate collateral damage and aren’t available in unlimited amounts.
There is substantial evidence of Russia targeting civilians and committing war crimes not by them hitting those targets, but by there not being plausible legitimate targets nearby and them causing much more collateral than would be expected.
A strike where children and civilians are harmed is harmful to both sides. The propaganda war is most important. Framing this as desirable is vile or vile propaganda.
But in this example they didn’t add a higher quality.
They added a new lower quality and took away what you already had/were paying for. Hence, you as a consumer are paying for the same level of service, but are receiving less
That’s the textbook definition - what am I missing?
You can check by looking up old but rates and using a downloader tool and checking file sizes. Apparently there is about 15% more data. Please note that compression may have changed/improved and objectively comparing products of lossy compression is non-trivial.
Huh? Where did you find out that they took anything away? Are you just assuming? I thought they added 1080p with a bitrate that’s higher than standard, because people were just watching 4k on 1080p screens because the higher bitrate made it look better.
As you say, it’s all about profitability. Making it worse for non-paying viewers is one of the most commonly used tactics, so I’d say the complaint is valid.
Streaming in 4K or even higher is free for everyone, that’s also more expensive for them. The fact that 1080 looks so bad to begin with on their platform is just ridiculous and unnecessary.
Forgot to touch on the video bad point: I don’t have points of comparison between YT bitrates and 3rd party platforms. I find 2K to be plenty sharp and serviceable. And I don’t know a 3rd Party serving said content anyway.
1080p isn’t a quality standard so I would expect quality to vary anyway.
Yes, you’re right, the naming schemes are a bit all over the place.
I meant 1440p.
1440p monitors are usually referred to as 2K, but that’s probably more of a marketing thing.
There are no non-paying viewers. You pay in ads or you pay in dollarinios.
The high Bitrate was an add on for premium people. Streaming in 4k was discontinued due to low adoption and enormous cost. It is available for premium users today. You could argue for enshittyfication there, but are on shaky grounds for low adoption rate. A short experiment does not entitle you, in my mind.
Edit: appeartly outrage won and 4k is free once more
Well I block ads and I definitely never gave them a single coin. Besides that, I think you know what I meant with non-paying viewers.
That is not true, I often stream on 4K when I’m on my computer. Everything below 1440p is blurry and mushy (on YouTube) on screens above 10”. At least for me, I’m a bit peculiar with this.
I just checked and apparently they stopped pay walling 4k and 1440p.
It’s not blurry on my 4k Display so I feel like you are being dishonest. Only when very high Bitrate is needed everything goes to shit. And that’s only e.g. flowing sand.
You feel like I’m dishonest? Well, great. But I’m not.
Obviously it heavily depends on what you’re watching, I’m for example often watch “Digital Foundry” and in their videos the difference is quite huge.
Ahhh, sweeping camera motions in very detailed environments while comparing pixels. Yeah. That’s an extremely demanding task where bit rate matters a lot.
Slide shows work well enough, such as Matt Parker’s videos or well there is your problem or civ or magic the gathering.
Yes, that’s why I’m having such a problem with the low bitrate. If I watch a video of a person sitting at their desk, talking into the camera, I also don’t really care, this kind of content mostly wouldn’t even be necessary in higher resolutions. Content creators still upload 4K versions so YouTube doesn’t butcher the quality too much. Thus creating a problem for themselves, as they need to provide more storage.
Nature videos with the ‘enhanced birate’ option piss me off the most. Personally, they’re basically unwatchable. There’s nothing worse than watching a gorgeous shot of a waterfall, forest, river, lake, or whatever, and then getting ambushed by those fuckugly compression artifacts. Hell, I’ve seen dirt look bad enough to notice because of it.
What a completely wrong comment. Wow. It’s so perfect in its wrongness. It’s almost breathtaking.
YouTube adding a higher quality feed does not degrade the service. I don’t know how to put this in planer language.
Serving video is expensive. Serving high Bitrate video is extremely expensive. Storage costs have stopped scaling. Do you want them to provide a sustainable service or run at a loss to hike prices later when competition died? That’s not how YT operates. They are profitability and creator revenue first.
They made bad choices with shorts, sure.
Google makes $130 a month from their free users I think they are doing okay.
https://proton.me/blog/what-is-your-data-worth-to-google
Thats not true. The assumptions in this article about me are wrong. And I see other ads than just YouTube’s.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-how-profitable-are-the-worlds-largest-companies/
Just remember the real value of YouTube is the algorithmically feeding videos to people to radicalise them, sway and reinforce opinions, neuter activist movements and encourage discord between the lower classes all while serving up soma and pacifying others.
Propaganda is so more effective when it can be bespoke. That’s why all the billionaires have gone mask off; their new propaganda models of the last few years have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.
Susan wasn’t really that involved in politics as far as I could tell. I don’t know who steerz the ship nowadays. I have no idea what Larry Page believes, but he isn’t a high profile political figure. That article barely talks about Google.
Mistrust is good. But YouTube is a profit driven enterprise for all the public can reasonably tell. I think I haven’t seen a single thing I would attribute to malice or evil from them. Everything seemed either incompetent or justify able.
Google is an American defense contractor just like Anthropic.
Anthropic made a profit when the Iranian girls school was targeted with their Artificial intelligence as did Raytheon when the Tomahawk blew their bodies to smithereens.
You can be profit motivated and be evil they aren’t mutually exclusive. You see this repeated again and again. Cigarette companies, old fashioned American slavery. Unfortunately “evil” is very profitable.
The road construction department is integral to the military. They did profit of the Iran war too.
We live in an interconnected world where companies do more than one thing. A lot is dual use.
And there is little if any evidence of the US committing war crimes in Iran. Smart bombs aren’t wonderful contraptions that eliminate collateral damage and aren’t available in unlimited amounts.
There is substantial evidence of Russia targeting civilians and committing war crimes not by them hitting those targets, but by there not being plausible legitimate targets nearby and them causing much more collateral than would be expected.
A strike where children and civilians are harmed is harmful to both sides. The propaganda war is most important. Framing this as desirable is vile or vile propaganda.
But in this example they didn’t add a higher quality.
They added a new lower quality and took away what you already had/were paying for. Hence, you as a consumer are paying for the same level of service, but are receiving less
That’s the textbook definition - what am I missing?
That’s false. They didn’t touch old content on high Bitrate introduction. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/157ksuu/is_youtube_actually_serving_at_an_enhanced/ discusses this.
You can check by looking up old but rates and using a downloader tool and checking file sizes. Apparently there is about 15% more data. Please note that compression may have changed/improved and objectively comparing products of lossy compression is non-trivial.
A 3-year old reddit thread? I think we’re done here, this isn’t a serious discussion any longer
Huh? Where did you find out that they took anything away? Are you just assuming? I thought they added 1080p with a bitrate that’s higher than standard, because people were just watching 4k on 1080p screens because the higher bitrate made it look better.
As you say, it’s all about profitability. Making it worse for non-paying viewers is one of the most commonly used tactics, so I’d say the complaint is valid.
Streaming in 4K or even higher is free for everyone, that’s also more expensive for them. The fact that 1080 looks so bad to begin with on their platform is just ridiculous and unnecessary.
Forgot to touch on the video bad point: I don’t have points of comparison between YT bitrates and 3rd party platforms. I find 2K to be plenty sharp and serviceable. And I don’t know a 3rd Party serving said content anyway.
1080p isn’t a quality standard so I would expect quality to vary anyway.
YouTube compresses heavier and has lower bitrates on 1080p and lower, that’s why 2K and above look waaay better in comparison.
2k is 1080p.
Yes, you’re right, the naming schemes are a bit all over the place. I meant 1440p. 1440p monitors are usually referred to as 2K, but that’s probably more of a marketing thing.
I know them as 3k. That’s even worse
Wow, never heard that. It’s not even close to 3K! It’s 2.5K if anything.
We should drop the “K” naming, honestly. 1080p or FHD 1440p or QHD 2160p or UHD
There are no non-paying viewers. You pay in ads or you pay in dollarinios.
The high Bitrate was an add on for premium people. Streaming in 4k was discontinued due to low adoption and enormous cost. It is available for premium users today. You could argue for enshittyfication there, but are on shaky grounds for low adoption rate. A short experiment does not entitle you, in my mind.
Edit: appeartly outrage won and 4k is free once more
Well I block ads and I definitely never gave them a single coin. Besides that, I think you know what I meant with non-paying viewers.
That is not true, I often stream on 4K when I’m on my computer. Everything below 1440p is blurry and mushy (on YouTube) on screens above 10”. At least for me, I’m a bit peculiar with this.
I just checked and apparently they stopped pay walling 4k and 1440p.
It’s not blurry on my 4k Display so I feel like you are being dishonest. Only when very high Bitrate is needed everything goes to shit. And that’s only e.g. flowing sand.
You feel like I’m dishonest? Well, great. But I’m not. Obviously it heavily depends on what you’re watching, I’m for example often watch “Digital Foundry” and in their videos the difference is quite huge.
Ahhh, sweeping camera motions in very detailed environments while comparing pixels. Yeah. That’s an extremely demanding task where bit rate matters a lot. Slide shows work well enough, such as Matt Parker’s videos or well there is your problem or civ or magic the gathering.
Yes, that’s why I’m having such a problem with the low bitrate. If I watch a video of a person sitting at their desk, talking into the camera, I also don’t really care, this kind of content mostly wouldn’t even be necessary in higher resolutions. Content creators still upload 4K versions so YouTube doesn’t butcher the quality too much. Thus creating a problem for themselves, as they need to provide more storage.
Nature videos with the ‘enhanced birate’ option piss me off the most. Personally, they’re basically unwatchable. There’s nothing worse than watching a gorgeous shot of a waterfall, forest, river, lake, or whatever, and then getting ambushed by those fuckugly compression artifacts. Hell, I’ve seen dirt look bad enough to notice because of it.