YouTube. Im sure this has been a thing for a while... but this is getting out of hand.
It'll keep continuing until you get one FPS and no audio without paying for premium.
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.caView original on lemmy.ca
92 replies
Yeah, only pay piggies get to enjoy youtube's greasy AI filter in all it's high-res sloppy enshittified splendor.
what game are you building? :D
Remember TV at 320x200? Or if you wanted 780p you could touch the Bunny ear antenna and then do yoga.
I watch free youtube on my tv. I get ads but in the big scheme of things the variety of content I get from youtube dwarfs any advertisement interruptions I receive...so far. As far as video quality goes, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, depending on the source. I watched the old "Crime Story" series on youtube and it was pretty bad and blurry and I enjoyed the hell out of that series. Your brain can quickly autofill a lot of visual blanks. The nickel and dime bullshit is getting annoying though. One day they'll price themselves out of customers or switch to only serving the elite (in this case the 'elite' mean those with employment).
You can stop using it.
I'm waiting for the 200fps with UHD
Can't you put it the other hand?
Of all the problems with YouTube, this isn't one of them. It's reasonable for a free service to offer premium features such as this. If you upload in higher resolutions, people still get free access to those and even if your screen is 1080p, watching in 4K gives you higher bitrate.
Enshittification doesn't mean adding new features and charging for them. It means changing the existing service to make it worse, to encourage people to pay for subscriptions.
Very true.
Also very true.
YouTube cut the default bitrate when they added this "feature". It was incredibly obvious to my eyes the instant it was pushed out, and remains obvious everytime I come across one of these videos. If they had just charged for better bitrate, I wouldn't have cared. However, they also cut the default bitrate down, making all the videos that have this look really bad.
This is textbook inshittification, complete with the gaslighting bullshit of saying "we were always like this! Its your fault it seems worse than it was!" in every design decision involved in the process.
If they did, then that would be enshittification, yeah. But I cannot find any evidence of it being true, only testimonies from people. Which could be the player buffering, showing lower resolution due to internet connection etc, etc.
My 1080p streams have looked the same as they always have. Testing it now, they are playing at around 80,000kbps, using AV1. If people upload at 1440p/4K, then it's just a non-issue anyway as they have much higher bitrates.
They did. When I encounter such videos, I immediately think "why is it stuck in 720p" only to discover it's 1080p non premium, that is way worse than any other standard 1080p video.
This feature is limited to videos that don't have a better resolution than 1080p. It's also even more limited to videos that the uploaders choose to enable it on, or at least, se subset of 1080p videos, since I've seen new 1080p videos both with and without it. Finally, it doesn't apply to old 1080p videos.
Yup. Doesn't make it any less frustrating to see my favorite nature guy's videos turn to shit just because of it.
These two videos look identical to me and get the same bitrates. Why are they only uploading in 1080p now though? Their video could be poorly encoded in the first place which YouTube cannot magically save. It's going to look worse in these kind of videos anyway, because of all the foliage and particles from fires.
There is still no hard evidence YouTube made regular 1080p worse to sell "Enhanced Bitrate" and I don't think there is going to be. I think people got used to higher bitrates with 1440p/4K videos and now when they see a 1080p video they are surprised by the quality change, see the "Enhanced bitrate" option and make this assumption.
I have gone back to old videos and they are just the same as they were. They have been transcoded to AV1, but that codec is magic, they are probably using less bitrate now than they were when released.
Right. I haven't been able to actually do my own testing for life reasons, but I think it matters less what the actual numbers are here, and more that the guy stopped posting free 4k versions once the paid 1080p option came out; basically cutting his quality down in the name of, whatever benefit he gets from the paid 1080p thing.
In short, YouTube added a paid feature that encouraged the use of a shittier quality unpaid user experience. Worse, because it appears to be a choice on the creators side, instead of YouTube or the viewer, it shifts blame from YouTube, who created the situation in the first place, to the creator, who only took advantage of it (or used it because this is their job and they need the money to live).
He doesnt get a benefit afaik. Its automated by YouTube, some (1080p) videos get it, some dont. Thats why is might look shit, this creator just has a worse setup now and isnt encoding his videos with a good enough bitrate. If YouTube think your video will benefit from more bitrate, then it transcodes in a higher bitrate, if it doesnt, then that enhanced option doesnt even appear.
Agreed. The service needs to justify the resources it uses somehow. Personally, I even think locking 4k playback completely behind subscriptions would have been justified by the much higher bandwidth required as long as that also meant subsidizing a better experience for everyone staying free on 1080p and below. That feels like a more reasonable balance to me than them frantically trying to get enough ad revenue to make up the difference, but what do I know?
Adding new features and charging for them can absolutely be a component of enshitification.
Nah, because if them features didnt exist, they havent affected the original service/product by being introduced, thus hasnt enshittified it. If access to the original is affected, then that would enshittification.
If your product stays current/modern with paid new features and the free portion is left to rot, it is enshitification. Enshitification is not a specific behavior or feature set. It is a product lifecycle of first tailoring your product to the customers to increase market share, then tailoring to advertisers to increase revenue and solidify market dominance, then tailoring to investors and squeezing your customers and advertisers for every last penny and cutting costs wherever possible as your product becomes worse and worse for the original customers. It's the shifting of target audience and abandonment of the previous that is a natural byproduct of infinite growth.
Enshitification is not simply "product becomes worse because x". Though, I'd argue that diverting resources to premium features while allowing the non-premium features to become obsolete is a tangable worsening of a product.
I disagree. If your free version isn't changing, then it isn't enshitification. This is the freemium model. It gives basic functionality to everyone in hopes of converting them to (or using them to attract) paid users. That's not enshitification. That's giving someone a free sample.
This I agree with, I just don't think it is an accurate description of the situation above.
Not that this is a hill I particularly want to die on... But YouTube isn't free. I understand absolutely of course there are operational costs that need to be covered. Even if it is operated by one of the six companies that control the world.
But if I sit through a torrent of ads. That's my payment. Never mind the brokering of all of the personal information it can glean from devices watched on and location etc...
Yes, but I am talking financially, as nothing is truly free as everything costs time. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory.
Them adding more ads is enshittification, not an optional higher bitrate stream. They didnt replace the existing 1080p stream.
You do not need to live this way. I've never seen a YouTube ad.
This doesn't need to be true either. I use FreeTube and never log in
The day Google once and for all successfully stops ad blocking, etc., is the day that I stop watching YouTube videos.
Premium bitrate has been a thing for years.
I'm not saying that it hasent... But I fairly often miss about with the quality especially if I'm just using it as background noise... This is just the first time I've seen it.
It's not available on every video. So if you're primarily using it for background noise, I'm assuming it's mostly like background music, which is less likely to be a video that qualifies for the improved bitrate.
As mentioned, it was introduced a few years ago. It really makes a noticeable improvement to video quality, too. Bit rate is kind of king when it comes to streaming.
For whatever it's worth to you iirc they didn't downgrade the original bitrate, they just introduced better bitrate and locked that behind the subscription.
I don't personally pay for YouTube Premium anymore, but I did for a while. I consider it an incredible value, tbh, but stopped because I wanted to stop supporting Google.
However, I also just don't use YT anymore as a result. I'm curious how you think YT should exist if not by charging for features? Because I'll be honest, of all the enshittification YT has experienced, this one in particular is way, way down on the list for me.
They absolutely did. It's a very obvious difference I noticed when they first released this "feature" and has been bugging the shit out of me ever since it came out.
Ooooh, learning Godot? Best of luck, it is an absolutely fantastic engine.
I was waiting for something like this 😂
I cut my teeth on Unity so Godot is both familiar and confusing..
Fight through and it will be worth it!
I quit Unity after their price changes about 2 years ago, and have made 15 small games in Godot since then. It is like the Blender of Game Dev. A little rough at first, and then when it clicks it is a perfect little piece of software that is so much fun to use.
How do you cut your teeth?
720p is the best fight me
On YouTube it’s most definitely not. The quality is shit thanks to their compression.
Yeah it’s not the best. But it never stutters, I can change cell towers on a train, WiFi in the garden, whatever, it’s done
Clever.
Since I almost always on VPN, I sometimes go even lower, most long vids and podcasts I play through NewPipe without video at all. The only thing where 1:1 resolution match with the uploader matters for me is tutorials on software usage and coding, where I need to see interface and text clearly. 720p sits neatly between these two, but I am a man of extremes.
Yes, that’s true, the service itself is rather reliable and stable, but that doesn’t really necessitate the low bitrate on 1080p and lower. The resolution itself has often less of an impact on the perceived quality than the bitrate. Especially on mobile
That’s very interesting! I have just come to this opinion through trial and error o~0
That’s also one of the more important things to know about digital photography. Higher resolution does not equal better quality. A lot of digital formats are defined by more than one key figure.
Too low of a bitrate mostly. But they adjust it depending on the content, so it can be different per video
It's fine for most things... I'm trying to remember now what standard DVD definition was.
480p or 480i
Nah, 720p is horrible in practice because of the employed bitrate in most cases. But i dont argue against a well encoded 720p file. It can be alright in theory depending on the content.
DVDs did ~10mbps at 480p using the mpeg2 codec. YouTube doesn't recommend 10mbps until 1080p using x264 (mpeg2's successor).
DVDs 480p is better quality than YouTube's 720p, and YouTube only gets ahead of DVDs after you switch to 1080p or above.
Modern online streaming at 4k usually doesn't usually do any better than 20mbps (personal experience). Compressions helps, especially with av1, but for the most part, physical media is worlds better than streaming media is, because unlike physical media, the media companies have to pay for every mbps they deliver.
Meanwhile my internet that can only handle 480p
You are untouchable
Downloading with
yt-dlpresults in full bitrate if the "AV1" format is selected. Well, last I tried.MPV has a yt-dlp plugin (historically still referenced "ytdl") if you want to watch once and burn the download:
mpv -- ytdl://video_id_here. Note that if the video is 4K or 8K, it will play that and not auto switch.It's been there for like 3 years or something already.
For some reason playing at 3x speed is also a premium feature, IDK who's using that, think it only used to go to 2.
My default playback speed is 2.5x, so I'm close to 3x...
What drives me out of my mind is the QR codes that keep popping up over the video I'm trying to watch. If I want to buy something, I'll find it, I promise. Ugh.
We should be happy, there's still quite far that the enshittification can go
People still use YouTube?
The biggest video platform on the internet?
Are you seriously asking that?
Yes.
They do. I know I know. I'm a basic bitch
This is why you cannot take cries about enshittyfication seriously.
Anytime any company does something (sensible) you hear that. It almost never fits. And when it does the word has lost its efficacy
What a completely wrong comment. Wow. It’s so perfect in its wrongness. It’s almost breathtaking.
YouTube adding a higher quality feed does not degrade the service. I don't know how to put this in planer language.
Serving video is expensive. Serving high Bitrate video is extremely expensive. Storage costs have stopped scaling. Do you want them to provide a sustainable service or run at a loss to hike prices later when competition died? That's not how YT operates. They are profitability and creator revenue first.
They made bad choices with shorts, sure.
Google makes $130 a month from their free users I think they are doing okay.
https://proton.me/blog/what-is-your-data-worth-to-google
Thats not true. The assumptions in this article about me are wrong. And I see other ads than just YouTube's.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-how-profitable-are-the-worlds-largest-companies/
Just remember the real value of YouTube is the algorithmically feeding videos to people to radicalise them, sway and reinforce opinions, neuter activist movements and encourage discord between the lower classes all while serving up soma and pacifying others.
Propaganda is so more effective when it can be bespoke. That's why all the billionaires have gone mask off; their new propaganda models of the last few years have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.
Susan wasn't really that involved in politics as far as I could tell. I don't know who steerz the ship nowadays. I have no idea what Larry Page believes, but he isn't a high profile political figure. That article barely talks about Google.
Mistrust is good. But YouTube is a profit driven enterprise for all the public can reasonably tell. I think I haven't seen a single thing I would attribute to malice or evil from them. Everything seemed either incompetent or justify able.
Google is an American defense contractor just like Anthropic.
Anthropic made a profit when the Iranian girls school was targeted with their Artificial intelligence as did Raytheon when the Tomahawk blew their bodies to smithereens.
You can be profit motivated and be evil they aren't mutually exclusive. You see this repeated again and again. Cigarette companies, old fashioned American slavery. Unfortunately "evil" is very profitable.
But in this example they didn’t add a higher quality.
They added a new lower quality and took away what you already had/were paying for. Hence, you as a consumer are paying for the same level of service, but are receiving less
That’s the textbook definition - what am I missing?
That's false. They didn't touch old content on high Bitrate introduction. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/157ksuu/is_youtube_actually_serving_at_an_enhanced/ discusses this.
You can check by looking up old but rates and using a downloader tool and checking file sizes. Apparently there is about 15% more data. Please note that compression may have changed/improved and objectively comparing products of lossy compression is non-trivial.
A 3-year old reddit thread? I think we’re done here, this isn’t a serious discussion any longer
Huh? Where did you find out that they took anything away? Are you just assuming? I thought they added 1080p with a bitrate that's higher than standard, because people were just watching 4k on 1080p screens because the higher bitrate made it look better.
As you say, it’s all about profitability. Making it worse for non-paying viewers is one of the most commonly used tactics, so I’d say the complaint is valid.
Streaming in 4K or even higher is free for everyone, that’s also more expensive for them. The fact that 1080 looks so bad to begin with on their platform is just ridiculous and unnecessary.
Forgot to touch on the video bad point: I don't have points of comparison between YT bitrates and 3rd party platforms. I find 2K to be plenty sharp and serviceable. And I don't know a 3rd Party serving said content anyway.
1080p isn't a quality standard so I would expect quality to vary anyway.
YouTube compresses heavier and has lower bitrates on 1080p and lower, that’s why 2K and above look waaay better in comparison.
2k is 1080p.
Yes, you’re right, the naming schemes are a bit all over the place. I meant 1440p. 1440p monitors are usually referred to as 2K, but that’s probably more of a marketing thing.
There are no non-paying viewers. You pay in ads or you pay in dollarinios.
The high Bitrate was an add on for premium people. Streaming in 4k was discontinued due to low adoption and enormous cost. It is available for premium users today. You could argue for enshittyfication there, but are on shaky grounds for low adoption rate. A short experiment does not entitle you, in my mind.
Edit: appeartly outrage won and 4k is free once more
Well I block ads and I definitely never gave them a single coin. Besides that, I think you know what I meant with non-paying viewers.
That is not true, I often stream on 4K when I’m on my computer. Everything below 1440p is blurry and mushy (on YouTube) on screens above 10”. At least for me, I’m a bit peculiar with this.
I just checked and apparently they stopped pay walling 4k and 1440p.
It's not blurry on my 4k Display so I feel like you are being dishonest. Only when very high Bitrate is needed everything goes to shit. And that's only e.g. flowing sand.
You feel like I’m dishonest? Well, great. But I’m not. Obviously it heavily depends on what you’re watching, I’m for example often watch “Digital Foundry” and in their videos the difference is quite huge.
Gladaed, defender of billion dollar companies, protector of the pedophile class.