this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
938 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

70080 readers
3357 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This week YouTube hosted Brandcast 2025 in which it revealed how marketers could make better use of the platform to connect with customers.

A few new so-called innovations were announced at the event but one has caught the attention of the internet – Peak Points. This new product makes use of Gemini to detect “the most meaningful, or ‘peak’, moments within YouTube’s popular content to place your brand where audiences are the most engaged”.

Essentially, YouTube will use Gemini and probably the heatmap generated on YouTube videos by people skipping to popular points, to determine where to place advertising. Anybody who has grown up watching terrestrial television where adverts arrive as a way to build suspense will understand how annoying Peak Points could become.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 166 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Google seems bound and determined to destroy itself trying to escalate it's profits from "staggering" to "colossal." The search is so bad AI is actually better, and that's saying something. And now they want to enshittify YouTube? Okay. I'm sure it won't die right away, but this will be one of the thousands cuts.

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 126 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] FrostyPolicy@suppo.fi 63 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 22 points 2 days ago

SmartTube

....yt-dlp

[–] podperson@lemm.ee 14 points 2 days ago

Yep - I legit haven't seen an ad on YT in years. I also, just the other day, ran across another filter that disables the stupid shorts since I don't care for that format or YT pushing it on me all the time. Almost usable platform now.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

laughs in invidious. google doesn't even get to know I'm watching anything

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

No, I want them to know. Tell Cersei I did it.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t YouTube still running year over year at a loss?

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

Last I checked Alphabet had something like $60 billion in profit.

At this point, they probably consider YouTube to be a loss leader while they siphon up everyone's data.

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Finances

In Q2 2024, ad revenue rose to $8.66 billion, up 13% on Q1.[321]

I don't think so.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yes, I know, but I doubt 8.6 billions per quarter aren't enough to make a profit.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They haven’t stated their operating costs, so you’re only speculating.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Operating costs are not known with that granularity, to my knowledge, but it's a good guess. Best anybody can tell Youtube is 10-ish percent of all of Alphabet's ad revenue and they have a subscription model as well. Not to mention the data gathering for AI training, plus all the intangible benefits from owning all the video on the Internet, from using Youtube tech for Google Drive stored videos to... you know, owning all the video on the Internet. And all of that without investing the ungodly amount of money Netflix and the other streaming competitors do on content. People just... upload that crap.

However their internal accounting breaks down, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks Youtube is bleeding money.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

YouTube was almost bankrupted because the cost of storage, servers and bandwidth greatly overran the ad revenue. Every idiot with 2 subscribers uploading dozens of hours of content cost them a ton of money. It is easy to underestimate how expensive video streaming infrastructure is.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Oh, it's extraordinarily expensive, and what people really underestimate is how HUGE Google's storage requirements actually are.

Thing is, it's also a ton of money. Youtube isn't just ad-driven video streaming, it's also a Spotify competitor, a Twitch competitor, a video subscription service (and for some reason they still have a movie and show rental thing in there). 10% of all of Alphabet's money is a LOT of money, and this isn't the only business of theirs that demands insane storage requirements.

I'm sure they'll tighten requirements eventually, and they've already done a ton of throttling, but they, again, own Internet video.

Let me put it this way, I think if Google decided to offer Youtube to either of us for a dollar on the condition we can't resell it to anybody and we have to keep running it forever we'd both still take it.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

its also why they allow more right wing content on the site too, conservatives love outrage and youtube provides now

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let me put it this way, I think if Google decided to offer Youtube to either of us for a dollar on the condition we can't resell it to anybody and we have to keep running it forever we'd both still take it.

I'm not sure about that. what would I do? manipulate elections? manipulate public opinion? I'm not an advertising company to be able to do that

[–] Cenzorrll@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you give me all of YouTube and that includes everyone maintaining it, all the data collection processes from it, and the infrastructure to keep it running. Hell yeah I'll take it, the data collection alone on users is an information gold mine and companies all over would be salivating to get a piece of that. I can pretty much guarantee that if given the threat of losing the data of everyone in the worlds video watching habits vs paying more to upkeep it, companies will start paying more.

In all actuality, I'd still do it and toss out the data collection. I don't see anywhere in this mental exercise that I have to keep it running well. Y'all (well, about 5 of y'all at a time) are watching 36p videos from here on out.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

36 pixel in height is not much

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago

Yes, if you re-read my previous comment I said I don't think they are losing money.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago

Facebook has spent something like 70 billion dollars on the "metaverse" with nothing to show for it, so it's very possible.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

I mean it must be? The only income it has is based on ads from Google.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I guess that's what happens when you hire the top minds from yahoo