Hopefully this convinced the last person still gullible enough to believe on Google's interest to maintain long term (let's say, more than a decade) any service that's not Search, Ads, YouTube, Gmail or Android.
You mean that they finally started to pay attention to the ludicrous crap they were giving money to that advertisers wanted nothing to do with?
What a surprise. It was deserved and a long time coming.
People need to learn that whatever horrible thing you put online doesn’t automatically get you paid. Advertisers don’t want to sponsor “anything” because it reflects poorly on them.
>You mean that they finally started to pay attention to the ludicrous crap they were giving money to that advertisers wanted nothing to do with?
No, it means they've started promoting crap for monetizing and penalizing things that people actually want to see.
>Advertisers don’t want to sponsor “anything” because it reflects poorly on them.
Given the human scum that are advertisers, I doubt anything could reflect poorly on them.
At best it would reflect badly on their clients -- who themselves would be totally fine to advertise on KKK websites and snuff films if it didn't cause a backslash.
The real issue is that advertisers still think that the video an ad plays on reflects their viewpoints. Coke playing an ad on a video with vulgar language does not mean that Coke condones vulgar language in our society.
They still think it's TV advertising when it's not.
Why is it different? What makes YouTube different from TV or radio or newspapers?
Someone always says ‘but the internet is different’ but I’ve never seen a good explanation for why. Just things along the lines of ‘that’s how it’s been’ or ‘TV and radio are wrong’.
How is paying money to support something not an endorsement?
> What makes YouTube different from TV or radio or newspapers?
This is a good question. TV, radio, and newspapers all need to cater to the lowest common denominator(LCD) in order to obtain the greatest amount of viewership as possible, because distribution is expensive. A focus on the LCD combined with data analytics is why channels like The Learning Channel(TLC) and History Channel only show reality TV nowadays: They don't want to offend, they just want to maximize revenue on their single channel.
YouTube uses a different model. Every individual can subscribe to specific media niches that wouldn't otherwise be able to survive on TV, because the cost of distribution is brought to zero. The only costs that need to be considered are the costs of media development.
In real life, most people use vulgar language. Most people don't care about diversity or gender stereotypes. They don't care about the focus on the LCD. All they want is media that they can relate to and enjoy, and almost everyone enjoys stuff a bit different from the LCD. The fact that advertisers are trying to shift focus from individualized content to LCD content just so they can control the platform leaves many people bitter, and removes the competitive edge that YouTube has over typical media.
> How is paying money to support something not an endorsement?
Companies nowadays are trying to make it an endorsement, but it doesn't have to be. All YouTube needs to do is to make it widely known that while companies can push for certain demographics, they have no control over the advertising. Companies want more control over the platform than they really need.
That explains why channels like Ben Heck and Techmoan and GameSack have enough of a market to make a lot of content. The long tail works much better than mass media, which is one of the reasons so many of us love YT.
I don’t see why that means advertisers aren’t, in some way, endorsing the content. If anything the fact there are so many channels and the content is more specific seems like a stronger endorsement than mass media.
I don’t understand how YouTubers expected to never have advertisers try to scrutinize what they’re supporting or putting their name next to.
And yes, good people are getting dragged down by association because there are other things on YT that are toxic to advertisers like the weird copyright infringing kids content or the seemingly abusive kids content.
But if YT is going to host that stuff (they are), and you’re going to use their site too, then you’re going to get lumped in.
It’s the same problem as the dark web. Yes, there are a handful of legal sites that may be useful. But when a huge chunk of what it’s actualky used for is horribly illegal things you’re going to to get lumped in.
I’m kind of surprised YTers weren’t pushing YT to clean up a lot of this stuff earlier so this wouldn’t have happened.
>I don’t understand how YouTubers expected to never have advertisers try to scrutinize what they’re supporting or putting their name next to.
For one, because they shouldn't have a say. They should pay for views, and that's it. If they don't like a specific program, they can not sponsor it -- but not try to affect regular ad rotation through all kinds of videos a users sees through their ad money.
Because with the latter way, advertisers also get censorship power over content providers. Which is something only the public should have (view or not view).
> Because with the latter way, advertisers also get censorship power over content providers.
But they’ve always had that over ad-sponsored content. That’s what makes it ad-sponsored, that they choose who to pay and thus can pull funds for any reason.
Again, why should YT be different than other mediums with ad sponsored content?
> Hopefully this convinced the last person still gullible enough to believe on Google's interest to maintain long term (let's say, more than a decade) any service that's not Search, Ads, YouTube, Gmail or Android.
Presumably, anyone who was going to be convinced of that by this move was convinced when it was announced 16 months ago.
AppEngine has just about hit 10 years, and it's still growing and deeply integrated with the rest of the (even more actively developed) Google Cloud Platform, so it's probably nearly as secure as the other core itemss you mention.
> any service that's not Search, Ads, YouTube, Gmail or Android
I think you mean "any service that's not Search or Ads". Ads pay the bills, so every service is only useful as long as it increases ad revenue. Search may be special since Google cannot afford the damage to its brand if it shuts down search because it's not bringing in enough ad revenue.
The only service that could be considered safe is Ads (which is the only thing that gives Goole money). All the others are only channels to deliver those Ads.
Thus far, Google's major platforms have had roughly the same longevity as a typical series C startup. I will keep this in mind the next time Google announces a promising platform technology.
I wouldn't build much on GAE either...