• 1 Post
  • 159 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 21st, 2021

help-circle



  • I paid for GPM for quite a while. I then started working at Google and beta tested YouTube Music from very early on and gave lots of feedback about how it sucked. When they shut down GPM I cancelled my YouTube Premium membership and installed an ad blocker. Not just YTM but so many things about YouTube were getting worse and worse and I couldn’t find it in myself to keep paying for a service that kept removing features.


  • Yes, but in my experience it is pretty trash. Unlike Google Play Music which matched the music to known tracks and shuffled it in with recommended playlists and other features on YouTube Music the uploaded songs are basically completely isolated. At that point why use a streaming service?



  • This isn’t how YouTube has streamed videos for many, many years.

    Most video and live streams work by serving a sequence of small self-contained video files (often in the 1-5s range). Sometimes audio is also separate files (avoids duplication as you often use the same audio for all video qualities as well as enables audio-only streaming). This is done for a few reasons but primarily to allow quite seamless switching between quality levels on-the-fly.

    Inserting ads in a stream like this is trivial. You just add a few ad chunks between the regular video chunks. The only real complication is that the ad needs to start at a chunk boundary. (And if you want it to be hard to detect you probably want the length of the ad to be a multiple of the regular chunk size). There is no re-encoding or other processing required at all. Just update the “playlist” (the list of chunks in the video) and the player will play the ad without knowing that it is “different” from the rest of the chunks.


  • kevincox@lemmy.mltoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    That is a pretty weak argument. The issues are minor and in a library that people are moving off of to a better build and stronger validated library. Yes, it should have been like that in the first place, but the problem is minor and being addressed.

    I would look more to the various features of Matrix that aren’t encrypted like room names, topics, reactions, … and not to mention the oodles of unencrypted metadata. I really wouldn’t call Matrix a high-privacy system.

    I like Matrix and use it regularly, but it definitely doesn’t have a privacy-first mindset like Signal does. I’m hoping that this improves over time, but without a strong privacy first leadership it seems unlikely to happen.



  • This is basically admitting that consumers don’t actually value their subscription service for the cost. If users were buying used bikes and signing up for subscriptions Peloton would be thrilled, they would do everything that they could to encourage that like free trials. But it must be that most people who buy used bikes don’t find the subscription worth it and cancel within a few months. Adding this fee both extracts more money and creates a sunk cost fallacy that will cause them to go longer before cancelling.

    If the product sold itself they would just let people pay them subscriptions, its basically free money.









  • I don’t know why everyone is so negative. The gameplan seems pretty clear to me.

    1. Make expensive fancy product. This is effectively a “devkit” that companies can use to start experimenting with AR software.
    2. Make lower cost product. There are now a few decent apps available and early adopters will be willing to buy it to be one the leading edge.
    3. Now there is a bigger market, leading more companies to be willing to develop apps.

    Apple is hoping that this is enough to break the chicken-and-egg cycle. Enough to get a few powerful apps such that more regular consumers will be willing to buy which again increases the addressable market which makes it more attractive to companies.