While the company stops short of directly saying as much, it sure feels like the preposterously long ads we’re seeing here are an example of one tool in Google’s arsenal for effectively disabling YouTube playback for violators of the site’s ToS.
That makes no sense at all. It isn’t like skipping ads results in a black screen for the length of the ad.
People with adblockers aren’t going to see hour long ads or black screens when they don’t see ads in the first place.
They most likely pay peanuts compared to you for “bandwidth” (which for them is more of an electricity cost and trough-output allocation than a specific numeric value like consumers and smaller companies have). You also cache the video on your own device making the multiple tab thing useless if you don’t know what you’re doing. And Google can also just block you when they attack their servers, move traffic around, and so much more advanced stuff that protects their infrastructure.
tl;dr: Trying to boycott Google by trying to waste their resources is useless.
don’t care about their allotted price per GB. I care about their network throughput. can’t be faster than 200gbps at the switch and having millions of videos streaming simultaneously on top of their already network throughput would likely become an incident for the UX teams.
The private side of the network is a secret, but a recent disclosure from Google[90] indicate that they use custom built high-radix switch-routers (with a capacity of 128 × 10 Gigabit Ethernet port) for the wide area network. Running no less than two routers per datacenter (for redundancy) we can conclude that the Google network scales in the terabit per second range (with two fully loaded routers the bi-sectional bandwidth amount to 1,280 Gbit/s).
That makes no sense at all. It isn’t like skipping ads results in a black screen for the length of the ad.
People with adblockers aren’t going to see hour long ads or black screens when they don’t see ads in the first place.
I’m cool with that. but only because I’ll open 300 tabs all playing the same hour long ad on a remote PC and play them while I sleep.
let them chew through their finite bandwidth when there’s millions of people doing the same thing.
All that does is make YouTube money while costing money to the advertisers.
I think Google doesn’t care about that at all.
They most likely pay peanuts compared to you for “bandwidth” (which for them is more of an electricity cost and trough-output allocation than a specific numeric value like consumers and smaller companies have). You also cache the video on your own device making the multiple tab thing useless if you don’t know what you’re doing. And Google can also just block you when they attack their servers, move traffic around, and so much more advanced stuff that protects their infrastructure.
tl;dr: Trying to boycott Google by trying to waste their resources is useless.
don’t care about their allotted price per GB. I care about their network throughput. can’t be faster than 200gbps at the switch and having millions of videos streaming simultaneously on top of their already network throughput would likely become an incident for the UX teams.
As I said it’s 100 times more advanced than that.
They can switch IPs, datacenters, regions, whatever they want. They even have access to BGP routing.
They also use some custom switches according to Wikipedia: