[pbasista]

I would assume that network traffic and server costs are negligible to Google.

In my opinion, what they are looking for is not to cut down the costs but to increase the revenue. Either by more people watching ads or by more people using their paid service.

[rjh29]

Why would you assume that, Google employees frequently comment here that youtube has never turned a profit.

There are other costs such as music licensing, moderation and paying content creators.

[candiodari]

... which also means that the Youtube subscription is at best a temporary escape from ads. It's rapidly going to become worse than adblockers. It's already started. With Youtube premium you still see "promoted" videos, ie. paid ads, in the feed. So in a way it already doesn't deliver.

Plus hosting your own videos is pretty cheap nowadays.

[O1111OOO]

> which also means that the Youtube subscription is at best a temporary escape from ads.

Exactly. Decades ago, I remember *paying* for my first cable subscription. I was shocked at the number of commercials (ads) I was bombarded with. It only got worse... higher cable fees, more ads.

They can't have it both ways. I cut the cord many years ago (pre-streaming), never looked back.