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

memes

10398 readers
1884 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
[–] EveningPancakes@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I worked at a video ad server that offered a stream stitched solution going back to 2013. It comes down to development work/cost that the companies need to take on. Ultimately they would benefit from the cost required, but they wanted to be cheap and do a client side solution instead.

[–] h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah yes that makes a lot of sense. Googles war on adblockers seems really expensive but we don't know the numbers maybe it's still cheaper.

[–] EveningPancakes@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The HLS integration we offered definitely had a premium attached to it as well as an additional cost to the CDN that required the integration to live on. So it's not cheap.

It is weird that Google, with it's infinite pockets, hasn't pushed a stream stitched solution all these years until recently.

[–] 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.