this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
974 points (97.8% liked)

memes

10309 readers
1899 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

YouTube serves probably dozens of formats/bitrates, and has spent years tweaking how it ingests, transcodes, and serves videos. Adding in-stream ads might have been a bigger engineering task in that environment. Depending on the percentage of users/viewers avoiding ads, it might not have been worth the return.

[–] h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As I know they transcode every uploaded video to their preferred format. They could use the same infrastructure for the ads. But maybe it's really too expensive.

[–] EveningPancakes@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

You are correct, which goes into the cost category of doing a stream stitched integration. Also, when I left said ad server in 2016, I think I recall HLS streaming primarily supported by Apple devices. Devices like Roku's (don't quote me on that) didn't support it at the time so a lot of companies looked at where the majority of their streaming was occurring and decided it wasn't worth the hit.