google – Trekking with Dennis

Using an ad-blocker when heading online feels simultaneously like a cheat code and also something that’s absolutely essential nowadays. Ad-blocking browser extensions don’t simply prevent you from seeing ads, they also stop companies from tracking at least part of your online activity, including searches and clicks. Although it’s not something that gets discussed often, I’d go so far as to say that an ad-blocker is a pretty essential piece of software for anyone who wants to get a bit of extra privacy and who doesn’t want to see their data shared online. Obviously an ad-blocker on its own isn’t the only thing one needs to remain private and un-tracked online… but it’s a good, easy first step.

At the same time, though, ad-blockers fundamentally challenge the way in which a significant portion of the internet operates. The only way many websites can afford to remain online is because they’re funded by advertising revenue, and using ad-blocking extensions undermines that funding model. I have no sympathy for big corporations (as you’ll know if you’re a regular around here), but small businesses and community projects that rely on ad revenue aren’t things I’d want to see vanish from the internet.

Advertising is a major source of revenue for websites and apps.

YouTube has recently kicked off an attempt to crack down on ad-blockers, and it’s this effort that I wanted to talk about today – as well as talk about ads online and ad-blocking in a more general sense.

As YouTube’s position as the dominant video platform has been seriously challenged over the past three or four years, I can understand Google’s approach to ads and ad-blockers – or at least, I can recognise that there’s a perverse kind of logic to the corporation’s approach, even if I fundamentally disagree with much of what it’s doing. YouTube has been losing out to TikTok in particular, as well as other video sharing apps and websites, and that partially explains Google’s insistence on both serving up more and more ads to users and cracking down on ad-blocking.

If you use an ad-blocker, you might’ve seen this recently.

But Google is failing to learn not one but two vital lessons from the early days of the internet! The first is the “Streisand Effect.” By talking about ad-blocking, Google and YouTube are drawing attention to the existence of ad-blockers… and there are tangible, noticeable effects as a result. I don’t put much stock in Reddit as a bellwether of online discourse, but it’s at least noteworthy that the sub-Reddits for several well-known ad-blockers have seen massive increases in comments and subscribers since the YouTube crackdown began.

In short, Google and YouTube may be falling victim to the “law of unintended consequences!” By making a fuss about ad-blockers and trying to push ad-block users to ditch a useful piece of software, all they’ve managed to do is draw attention to the existence of ad-blocking software… causing more users, not fewer, to begin blocking ads on YouTube and other Google services.

The original “Streisand Effect” photograph.
*Image Credit: Copyright (C) 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, http://www.californiacoastline.org*

The second lesson Google and YouTube seem to have missed is that of Napster’s demise. In the early 2000s, Napster was one of the first big file-sharing websites. People began sharing music online, and the recording industry tried to sue anyone and everyone involved. Napster was shut down after only a couple of years… but that wasn’t the end of file-sharing. Other applications immediately picked up where Napster had left off, and file-sharing is still available online to this day.

Even if YouTube were to manage to successfully disable or shut down all of the most prominent ad-blocking extensions and applications, more will arise to take their place. And even now, there’s a raging battle between Google’s army of coders and those who volunteer or work for ad-blocking applications. As soon as Google updates its code, ad-blockers find a way around it. There’s no end in sight and no obvious way for Google to strike a killer blow.

Logo for uBlock Origin – a popular ad-blocking extension.

There will always be people who want to get something for nothing, and who want to enjoy YouTube without ever seeing a single ad. That’s inevitable. But the rise in ad-blocking isn’t the fault of “greedy” consumers… it’s YouTube’s own fault.

Ads on YouTube used to be inoffensive enough. They’d show up once per five or six videos, there’d only be a single ad, and most ads were only a few seconds long. YouTube also allowed for many ads to be skipped after five seconds – and this combination seemed to be working well enough. It’s never fun to be served up an ad, but it wasn’t obtrusive and didn’t get in the way of the YouTube experience for most people.

An example of a skippable ad on YouTube.

But YouTube wasn’t content with that… despite raking in literally billions of dollars in ad revenue. Parent company Google began inserting more ads, longer ads, mid-video ads, and unskippable ads… all of which made the user experience noticeably worse. The delicate equilibrium between advertising and content became unbalanced, so is it any wonder people started looking for ways to skip or avoid the ads? YouTube brought this upon itself!

This is the first time in almost four years of writing on the website that I’ve so much as mentioned ad-blocking. By trying to crack down on ad-blockers, all YouTube has managed to do is draw attention to their existence, and call out its own piss-poor advertising situation. It’s the classic case of trying to squeeze users too hard: all YouTube will do is drive more and more people away from its platform and into the arms of gleeful competitors like TikTok.

TikTok has emerged as a major competitor to YouTube in recent years.

If ads on YouTube would go back to the way they were a few years ago, maybe the corporation would be able to convince more people to switch off the ad-blockers. But Google is trying to force users to sign up for YouTube Premium – a new subscription service that’s surprisingly expensive. This is a case of “invent a problem, sell a solution.” Google makes the ad situation on YouTube worse and worse, then offers to let folks pay to skip the ads. Ad-blockers are an existential threat to that business model.

If Google believes that it can win this fight… I think it’s wrong and it’s underestimating the resourcefulness of folks online. There may be small victories along the way – Google may shut down one ad-blocking extension, for example, ban ad-blocking on Chrome, or manage to re-code YouTube to temporarily prevent ad-blockers. But there’s a whole lot of determination on the other side, and as we’ve already seen so far in this fight, it’s never more than a few minutes before workarounds are discovered for whatever updates are rolled out to YouTube. Even if Google managed to score a big win and prevented all ad-blocking on YouTube… it won’t be long before cunning volunteers find a way around it.

There are a lot of people who are working to update ad-blockers and keep them functioning.

YouTube is not the juggernaut it once was. TikTok’s rise has seriously challenged its status as the leading video-sharing platform, especially among younger folks, and TikTok’s advertising situation seems to be a lot better and more user-friendly. I don’t use TikTok all that much, but having tried it out recently, I find ads on that platform far less annoying and far more tolerable.

At this point, doing anything to turn off users or push them away feels like a catastrophically bad decision for YouTube that could blow up in its face. The history of the internet is littered with once-massive websites and companies that failed to keep up with changing user attitudes… so there’s no guarantee that YouTube will just be able to coast on its current and past success and simply win by default. That didn’t work for MySpace.

The internet and social media are constantly in a state of flux. It may seem that YouTube is in a dominant position right now – but the brief history of the web tells us that no website, app, or social media platform is unassailable. Doing anything to upset the apple cart while in that first-place position… it just isn’t a good idea. If YouTube was losing money hand over fist, unable to afford to keep the lights on, maybe this crackdown on ad-blocking would be more understandable. But we’re talking about a multi-billion dollar website backed up by one of the biggest tech companies on the planet.

YouTube’s own anti-consumer practices, coupled with the rise of TikTok and other platforms, have pushed people away at the precise moment that Google wants to rope them into long-term paid subscriptions. That’s unfortunate and puts YouTube in an awkward position, but I don’t think this is the right way to react. As Barbara Streisand found out when she tried to force a small photographer to take a picture of her house off the internet, calling attention to something only leads to more people becoming aware of it. YouTube and Google are drawing more attention to ad-blockers… and the result is articles like this one. I’ve literally never mentioned ad-blocking in almost four years of writing here on the website… not until Google and YouTube made it into an issue.

Google and YouTube seem determined to make ad-blocking into an issue.

At the end of the day, this is a fight YouTube won’t be able to win. They may score some successes along the way, and Google may even succeed at temporarily preventing ad-blockers on their platform. But it won’t be long before another ad-blocker pops up with a workaround. Look at what happened with Napster, LimeWire, and The Pirate Bay. Or look at how game developers and publishers are locked in a continual battle with pirates. No sooner has an anti-piracy tool been created than people are figuring out how to crack it and work around it. Spending a lot of money on these endeavours is ultimately fruitless – and it’s better for Google and YouTube to realise it now.

There’s also a very real legal question for Google and YouTube: are they even allowed to use software that detects ad-blockers? Scanning a user’s browser, extensions, or computer without permission is illegal in many jurisdictions, so these ad-blocker-blockers may not even be lawful. It would take someone with better legal knowledge than I to litigate that, though!

YouTube and Google may have fallen afoul of privacy laws.

So that’s the situation. YouTube is trying to push back against the small minority of its PC users who use ad-blocking software… but all that’s happened so far is a rise in the use of ad-blockers and more attention being drawn to ad-blocking. Volunteers working for popular ad-blocking extensions are easily able to shut down YouTube’s best efforts right now… and good for them.

I’d encourage anyone who wants to get a small bit of extra security and privacy online to seriously consider installing one of the available ad-blocking browser add-ons. You can manually “white-list” certain websites and apps, like YouTube, if you want to and if it feels important to you to contribute to smaller businesses and content creators.

As for YouTube’s prospects… I’m not so sure. The way people – especially younger people – consume media is changing, and YouTube’s status as the dominant video-sharing platform is already under threat. Maybe this clampdown on ad-blocking will succeed and will bring in a bit more loose change in the short-term, but beyond that? The future of online video platforms looks a lot more like TikTok and a lot less like YouTube.

Some images used above courtesy of Unsplash and Pixabay. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Do you remember Google Stadia? It’s the video game streaming platform that internet powerhouse Google launched in late 2019. I hope you didn’t spend too much money on buying any of the dozen or so games that got ported over, though, because it seems as though Google is throwing in the towel.

While the Stadia service itself isn’t going anywhere, Google announced today that they will be ending all internal game development and closing their Stadia-only game studios. We don’t know exactly how many titles were being worked on for the service, but there were several in development that haven’t yet been released – and it seems as though all titles scheduled to release in 2022 or later are now cancelled. A handful of titles planned for this year may still be released.

In typical corporate style, Google is trying to spin this as an “evolution” of the service; opening up Stadia to third-party developers. But… which third-party developers would those be, exactly? Make no mistake: this is the beginning of the end for Stadia.

Google Stadia was not an inherently bad idea. By streaming games instead of running them on a console, phone, or PC, Stadia allowed anyone with a decent internet connection to play games regardless of whether they owned an up-to-date console or powerful PC. But the service never really took off following a seriously underwhelming launch. In late 2019, Stadia was criticised for feeling like it was in its alpha version. Basic features were missing, and the service had less than twenty games. Though the Stadia team did put in some hard work to improve things, it never really got much attention from the gaming community or the public at large.

Within really just a few weeks of the service being launched, most of the attention from players and observers was on the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5. Despite having some advantages in theory – like a lower up-front cost and being readily available – no one really considered Stadia as a serious competitor to Microsoft and Sony.

And Google isn’t the only massive company in the tech space to suffer an ignominious defeat in its first foray into the gaming realm. A few weeks ago, Amazon announced that it was shutting down its first internally-developed multiplayer game, citing a lack of players. I couldn’t even remember the name of Crucible, such was the lack of attention and interest the project garnered!

Stadia was Google’s first project in the gaming sphere.

Both Google and Amazon seem to have expected to “break in” to the games industry in a similar manner to Microsoft’s 2001 launch of the original Xbox, yet neither company has managed to stick the landing. That’s despite gaming having grown massively in the intervening two decades, and despite, as mentioned, Google Stadia offering several potential advantages.

A relatively low cost of entry was Stadia’s big selling point in many ways, and as Xbox and PlayStation both continue to struggle with hardware availability – something which looks set to continue through at least the first half of this year – there was an opportunity for Stadia to have another throw of the dice and push hard. But Google appears to have lost interest in Stadia almost from the moment of its troubled launch, and today’s news has felt like an inevitability for some time.

The Stadia service, while interesting on paper, had two major drawbacks: it still required players to buy games individually, and it relied on faster-than-average internet connection speeds to work properly. There were also issues of lag, both from the service itself and its controller, and in any kind of competitive game, even a millisecond of lag is unacceptable.

Microsoft’s big selling point right now is Xbox Game Pass – a subscription service where a single monthly fee grants players access to a massive library of titles. Because Stadia is already a streaming platform – games run on Google’s hardware and stream via the internet to a player’s machine – there was an expectation that a subscription service would at least be an option, but it wasn’t at launch. The subsequent announcement of Stadia Pro was basically ignored, and doesn’t seem to have hooked in many subscribers. When you’re unable to download the games you buy, Google Stadia felt to many players like a risky option – how can you “own” something if you can’t even get a digital copy? Players who made that argument in 2019 may be feeling rather smug today, as Google is one step away from proving them right.

The internet connection speed was also an issue. In some countries with superfast internet it wouldn’t be an issue, but where I live in the UK, Stadia would have struggled. I’ve heard anecdotally from friends and others who bought into the service that even when they had what they thought was an acceptable connection speed, Stadia still underperformed.

There was a healthy scepticism regarding Stadia when it was launched, and the rough time the service endured in those crucial first few weeks was very offputting even to those who might’ve been interested. Streaming as a concept can work – and in the future don’t be surprised to see a Stadia-like offering from the likes of Steam, Epic Games, or even Nintendo. But for too many people, the infrastructure doesn’t exist right now to make streaming games a viable business proposition – or a risk consumers are willing to take.

The green variant of Google Stadia’s controller.

Finally, Stadia lacked any exclusive games. Alright, it had two: 2019’s Gylt, and Outcasters, which was released in December. Those are the only two Stadia-exclusive games as far as I can tell, and as I’ve said before: exclusive games sell systems. Without any – or with a couple of underwhelming titles that nobody notices – it’s very difficult to convince anyone to pick up a new system, even one which is relatively inexpensive.

Google is notorious for shutting down big projects, which was another reason folks were cautious about getting on board with Stadia. According to the website Killed By Google, the tech giant has shut down over 200 companies and projects, including some pretty well-known ones like Google Glass and Hangouts. The company has a tendency to cut and run when a project doesn’t meet expectations – and given Stadia has barely been more than a blip on the gaming radar, perhaps that’s to be expected.

So we don’t know at this stage how long Stadia itself will still be around. It’s possible that, despite the shutdown of internal game development, the servers will remain online for years to come, and if that’s the case maybe one day Stadia will see a revival. I wouldn’t bet on it right now, but you never know. Google’s corporate-speak of “focusing on improving technology” and “building business partnerships” sounds like a load of waffle to me, though, and I’m not sure which business partners they think are going to swoop in and save the ailing Stadia.

Stadia, like some of Google’s other abandoned projects, was an experiment. It was an attempt to make streaming the “next big thing” in gaming, and if it had worked we might be talking about the death of traditional home consoles in favour of cheaper streaming kits. But the reality is that the experiment didn’t work. Early adopters and tech enthusiasts were simply not interested, put off by a weak launch, lack of games, lack of the necessary infrastructure, the concept of buying games that they couldn’t be sure they’d be able to keep, and most importantly Google’s reputation. As a result, Stadia never hit the mainstream. Most consumers never even came to know it existed, and this news likely won’t even reach mainstream outlets.

In general I’m supportive of more competition in the gaming realm. Google, as a massive company with a huge budget, was uniquely placed to be disruptive, but for all the reasons above they couldn’t convince more than a handful of players to give Stadia a shot. This news is disappointing for the 150 or so developers who will lose their jobs, but it was not unexpected.

Stadia is owned by Google. All titles listed above are the copyright of their respective owners, studios, publishers, developers, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Tag: google

YouTube vs. Ad-Blockers

The beginning of the end for Google Stadia