Isn’t that the agreed upon consolation for free content? Was nobody alive when TV was the primary means of content consumption?
It always irked me that people are upset over YouTube running ads. Like, of course they had to start running ads, hosting/programming/daily operating millions of videos isn’t free for them. They need to make money some how, even at “break even” which prevents the idea of profit seeking would mean running ads.
Hate to sound like a “kids these days” but seriously, absolutely nothing in life is free and if there isn’t a direct cost, advertising is going to be present.
I think it depends on where they insert the ads. If it’s in free to air channels (government backed broadcasters, PBS, etc.) then they’re getting the content for free with negligence transfer cost, so ads would be out of the question in my opinion. The video is already paid for and Google should be happy they’re even allowed to provide their customers with those channels without paying a dime.
If they also provide services like recording or have to pay to receive the channels, it’s fair game to put ads in that, unless you pay for the channels. Same with YouTube, which costs a significant sum of money to store and transcode.
I don’t think the people who complain about YouTube have ever tried to run even a small video server. It’s honestly mind boggling that YouTube is somehow free to watch without the platform deleting the barely watched videos.
I agree that if Google is getting the content for free they should, at least try, to keep it ad free for the consumer. But I don’t know if Google has to pay licensing for stuff like PBS. PBS does technically have ads, but they are unobtrusive, shown at the beginning or end of a show and are presented as “Brought to you by….” Less of an ad and more recognition that a company has paid to support bringing PBS to you for free.
I’ve never uses this service, so I’m not aware of how they might insert ads either. Between shows? Typical ad-breaks times every 8.5 minutes of broadcast time? More?
Isn’t that the agreed upon consolation for free content? Was nobody alive when TV was the primary means of content consumption?
It always irked me that people are upset over YouTube running ads. Like, of course they had to start running ads, hosting/programming/daily operating millions of videos isn’t free for them. They need to make money some how, even at “break even” which prevents the idea of profit seeking would mean running ads.
Hate to sound like a “kids these days” but seriously, absolutely nothing in life is free and if there isn’t a direct cost, advertising is going to be present.
I think it depends on where they insert the ads. If it’s in free to air channels (government backed broadcasters, PBS, etc.) then they’re getting the content for free with negligence transfer cost, so ads would be out of the question in my opinion. The video is already paid for and Google should be happy they’re even allowed to provide their customers with those channels without paying a dime.
If they also provide services like recording or have to pay to receive the channels, it’s fair game to put ads in that, unless you pay for the channels. Same with YouTube, which costs a significant sum of money to store and transcode.
I don’t think the people who complain about YouTube have ever tried to run even a small video server. It’s honestly mind boggling that YouTube is somehow free to watch without the platform deleting the barely watched videos.
I agree that if Google is getting the content for free they should, at least try, to keep it ad free for the consumer. But I don’t know if Google has to pay licensing for stuff like PBS. PBS does technically have ads, but they are unobtrusive, shown at the beginning or end of a show and are presented as “Brought to you by….” Less of an ad and more recognition that a company has paid to support bringing PBS to you for free.
I’ve never uses this service, so I’m not aware of how they might insert ads either. Between shows? Typical ad-breaks times every 8.5 minutes of broadcast time? More?