• EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour 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.