PurestGuava

For AI, NVidia does have better tech, but on Linux at least the driver situation with AMD is infinitely better.

If it followed the USPS model there would be a retention fee for the uploader and a transfer fee for the downloader, both based on size.

The problem here is that we're already only having this debate because people refuse to pay, even when what they're paying with is functionally intangible (i.e. their letting an ad play on their PC for 30 seconds.

So any model which relies on people physically paying real actual money* is doomed to fail to begin with because you're not solving the issue.

OK, but we're very specifically discussing YouTube here, which as discussed, you don't have to pay for; but if you do, you don't see ads.

Most things are a sneeze compared to the budget of the federal government of the US, that doesn't mean that's a reasonable expectation for the US government (or any government) to run them.

There are no ads on Premium.

Source: I have Premium and have adblock disabled on YouTube - no ads.

YT Premium revenue goes to the same creators you watch otherwise but they get compensated more for your views than they do for any other person's views.

e.g. Linus Tech Tips posted up their share of revenue from AdSense in 2024; YT Premium made up 37% of their revenue despite being 29% of their views.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeCP-0nuziE

Whether that makes a given creator more money versus Patreon depends on how much you watch them, frankly.

You pay to make the content. You would have to "pay" to make the content no matter where you hosted it. You don't pay YouTube to host it. That's a silly argument.

You seem to ignore that you would probably have no audience - or have a significantly smaller audience - were it not for YouTube hosting your content. They are providing you a service, but you seem to think that nobody - not you, not your viewers - should have to trade anything for that service, despite the hosting and streaming of video being one of the most expensive possible tech services in the world (bar perhaps running genAI models.)

I dunno it's just very annoying how a lot of people have memed themselves into this train of thought where the big tech companies aren't actually providing them anything of value, when if they decided to suddenly stop providing their services they would be up a creek without a paddle.

There's a difference between letting an ad play and you simply ignoring it, and using technical means from preventing that ad playing at all.

Principally - the latter actually affects the compensation given to the creator of whatever video you're watching. The former does not.

21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google.

If it's that easy, why has nobody done it?

(Hint: governments don't want to run YouTube, probably shouldn't run YouTube, and nobody else wants or can afford the immense costs that come with running YouTube.)

Making any profit at all on a service that hosts and streams 4K video from everyone to everyone over the Internet while also compensating the creators of that video is no mean feat.

If people don’t think there’s enough value in YT, then don’t pay and don’t use it.

The most common throughline of all pro-piracy discourse is that there's a lot of people who feel completely entitled to free entertainment, and they will come up with all sorts of bizarre mental gymnastics to justify that as something other than "I want free entertainment and don't want to see ads."

I don't think anyone could articulate a coherent logical argument as to why they feel they should get YouTube's services, and the entertainment produced by the creators who are on YouTube, while not paying either of them through any means, other than pure selfishness.

You're trading your attention for entertainment you don't otherwise have to pay for.

People can and have.

They have somewhere near 10% share of the laptop market and the new Apple Silicon stuff absolutely cooks. For an afterthought, they're an exceptionally well-built and well-loved one that people enjoy using.

(In my experience as an app developer, getting any traction and/or money from your app can be much more difficult than actually building it.)

This. The app I built has maybe 50 downloads despite me trying quite hard to promote it. It's very difficult work, even with the app being completely free of charge (save for a donation button).

Nope. Not even that is 100% safe because you can be falsely convicted of a crime you never even committed.

That's so exceptionally unlikely as to be something you can discount as a possibility, providing you don't actually commit crimes.

I tried watching it again recently thinking "lol this movie ain't shit it's been five years this won't fuck me up".

NOPE. Nightmares. Horrible film. Important film, but horrible.

They do that because shipping things that have (potentially) faulty lithium-ion batteries is generally frowned upon, so in lieu of returning them some (potentially explosive) e-waste, they have you destroy it to ensure that you're not just trying to get a second headset for free.

It's astonishing how few people actually seem to realise this.

I don’t, but it’s still unpleasant to see.

Not everything has to be perfectly rational.

It's funny being old because the thing that confuses me is why people have reactions to reactions, ex. people saying "based, why should they have to apologize anyway, it wasn't offensive"...it clearly wasn't offensive in that sense!

Some people just really seem to object to the idea that anyone could ever experience an emotion and have it not be based on some kind of cold rationality.

The idea of feeling something in your gut, something visceral, is anathema to them.

Steve Jobs would have probably fired whoever suggested this ad, at best. He always saw the Mac as an enabler of and conduit for peoples' creativity, not a replacement for other forms of it.

Jobs' death is truly tragic in the context that Apple - and by extension, the rest of the tech world - could have gone in a very different direction if he were still around. He would probably be screaming his head off at the idea of generative AI.

It's the needless destruction that really gets to me. I have a fairly visceral reaction to seeing things that someone put time, effort and scarce resources into making get destroyed for no reason, and Apple's ad hit so many nerves in that respect. It's just a complete waste, and that's before we get into the whole subtext of "tech is going to destroy 'IRL' art forms" that many people got.

If you want to be the next Apple, stop to think about the tasks you envision normies doing with your thing and build around those tasks, making them stupidly easy, at the expense of a cohesive general system design.

I like your point, but to be fair, Apple is one of the absolute last companies I would accuse of having an incoherent system design philosophy.

This is exactly what they don't want. This costs money.

That sort of experience is why I don't begrudge people paying "extra" for Apple products (and do so myself). Apple put the legwork in to actually try and document their products in a friendly way, and provide support to users who need it.

Figuring out features of Google products seems to require random web searches and YouTube videos, because they don't appear to care about their customers' outcomes more than a second after they've handed over their money. Apple just... has how to guides on their website. The end.

Apple gets a lot of shit, but the one thing that they do exceptionally well is making things discoverable, putting their UIs in plain language (so e.g. something irreversibly destructive is specifically and clearly called out as such) and having abundant clear, well-written step by step instructions. Say what you like about them, but they put in the work to try and make their products approachable.

Google seem to scarcely understand their own products, let alone know how to put across their functionality in a coherent way.

So long as it has contactless, it's fine.

I mean, the "ethical practice" is the alternative that Facebook offers to consenting to targeted ads, which is where you don't get targeted ads but you have to pay for the service instead.

Turns out that that isn't acceptable to the EU either, because as far as they're concerned the issue is not whether data targeting is consensual, it's "fuck Meta".

I switched back to iPhone recently from Android and I do miss being able to silence, specifically, marketing push notifications when they arrive. iOS is either all or nothing unless the app itself lets you selectively turn off marketing push notifications (and they usually don't).

(Relatedly, if you're an app developer for some shop or other, and you ask for notification permissions "so we can keep you up to date on your orders!", and then the app spams me with marketing push notifications, it should mean that you and anyone else responsible gets a thousand years in the lake of fire when you're gone. Fair's fair.)

Everything else I don't miss really. My years of giving a toss about tweaking everything to be just-so are pretty much gone, just give me a sensible default that I can work with and I'm happy.

We should have the same for email.

But we don't. And while we don't, users have a reasonable expectation that they can send an email and the other person can read it.