1
00:00:02,760 --> 00:00:10,920
this video might not be the biggest but it could easily be the most unnecessary

2
00:00:08,120 --> 00:00:15,639
risk of my career the smart play for me would have been to jump onto the hate

3
00:00:12,639 --> 00:00:17,920
bandwagon anger cells and the internet

4
00:00:15,639 --> 00:00:23,119
is pretty freaking angry about the premium pay wall that YouTube has been

5
00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:25,080
experimenting with on 4K videos but that

6
00:00:23,119 --> 00:00:29,480
would have been a huge disservice to our community so instead of doing that I've

7
00:00:27,840 --> 00:00:35,520
spent the last few days thinking about it a lot and you know what I'm still

8
00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:40,000
pretty frustrated I mean no one likes being given something only to have it

9
00:00:37,320 --> 00:00:44,800
taken away later and no one likes feeling powerless in the face of an

10
00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:50,399
entity with the power and resources of Google as a full-time YouTuber trust me

11
00:00:47,480 --> 00:00:55,440
I feel that but I've also come to realize that this might be a necessary

12
00:00:53,399 --> 00:01:00,359
move if we want to preserve the good things about this platform really good

13
00:00:57,719 --> 00:01:05,280
things like the world's largest free repository of independent news media

14
00:01:02,680 --> 00:01:11,560
educational resources and cultural expression good things like this segue

15
00:01:08,159 --> 00:01:13,680
to our sponsor enlisted enlisted is a

16
00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:17,560
free-to-play multiplayer World War II shooter jump into large scale battles

17
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:21,040
from authentic moments in history like the invasion of Normandy check it out by

18
00:01:19,479 --> 00:01:25,680
following the link in the description before you even say it I am no corporate

19
00:01:23,479 --> 00:01:30,240
bootlicker over the past year I have gone to the mat with YouTube a lot more

20
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:33,920
times than I've taken their side notably over the utter incompetence of their

21
00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:38,600
comment moderation efforts their removal of the dislike counter and the way that

22
00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:43,560
their half effort HDR implementation has literally held back the entire video

23
00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:47,479
production industry but in this case once I calmed down a little I was able

24
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:53,759
to start putting together the pieces and we're going to start with the biggest

25
00:01:48,920 --> 00:01:55,920
and the most obvious one cost since 2007

26
00:01:53,759 --> 00:01:59,960
the amount of content per minute uploaded to YouTube has grown

27
00:01:57,759 --> 00:02:03,520
exponentially and it's common knowledge that data centers are expensive and the

28
00:02:01,920 --> 00:02:08,800
more data you serve the more data centers you need but as scary as this

29
00:02:06,719 --> 00:02:13,360
trend line already looks with that in mind it doesn't even begin to tell the

30
00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:18,239
whole story first of all it doesn't account for the size of the video files

31
00:02:15,319 --> 00:02:22,560
being uploaded back in 2007 digital cameras were relatively rare and the

32
00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:28,360
ones that we had recorded at pretty low resolutions anywhere from 240p to 480p

33
00:02:26,599 --> 00:02:35,280
that means a typical minute of video would take up a trifling 35 megab or so

34
00:02:31,920 --> 00:02:37,440
and that was the highquality source file

35
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:41,760
no big deal then right especially since YouTube can re-encode those uploaded

36
00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:47,319
files and serve them at a lower bit rate to save on both storage and bandwidth

37
00:02:44,080 --> 00:02:50,360
costs but let's fast forward a bit to 5

38
00:02:47,319 --> 00:02:52,440
years later in 2012 not only had the

39
00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:57,640
sheer volume of video uploaded to the platform increased 10 fold but HD 720p

40
00:02:56,200 --> 00:03:02,040
video recording was available on commodity smartphones with the latest

41
00:02:59,519 --> 00:03:07,360
Ione phones capable of full HD 1080p that puts our typical minute of

42
00:03:04,640 --> 00:03:10,959
footage at anywhere from 75 to 100 megabytes through compression we can

43
00:03:09,519 --> 00:03:17,680
still probably cut our storage and hosting costs in half but even if just

44
00:03:13,920 --> 00:03:20,840
say 40% of new uploads are in HD now and

45
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:23,239
I don't know 10% or in 1080P corrected

46
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:30,080
for video size our bar graph will start to look a little bit like whoa uh a

47
00:03:26,920 --> 00:03:32,959
problem except it actually wasn't at

48
00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:36,840
least not yet YouTube's user base and their revenue also increased

49
00:03:34,920 --> 00:03:40,760
dramatically during this time meaning that even if they weren't making money

50
00:03:38,439 --> 00:03:45,159
on it yet Google could easily justify the ongoing investment into their video

51
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:49,000
serving side hustle and besides it didn't hurt that every time Google built

52
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:55,400
a new data center it was cheaper and more efficient than the last one in just

53
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:56,959
3 years from 2009 to 2012 mechanical

54
00:03:55,400 --> 00:04:03,599
storage drives went from a cost per Gigabyte of 11 cents to just 5

55
00:04:00,920 --> 00:04:09,840
that's less than half the price Mo's law to the rescue again right uh about that

56
00:04:07,959 --> 00:04:14,959
to be clear not everyone agrees with NVIDIA CEO Jensen Wong but even Mo's

57
00:04:12,879 --> 00:04:19,959
Law's most stalwart Defenders have to admit that things have been slowing down

58
00:04:17,280 --> 00:04:24,600
for a while let's Jump Ahead another 3 years to demonstrate to

59
00:04:21,800 --> 00:04:29,759
2015 even ignoring the pricing anomaly that was caused by the Thailand floods

60
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:31,520
storage drives fell only about 25% this

61
00:04:29,759 --> 00:04:36,120
this time around there are a number of reasons for this but the main issue is

62
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:40,520
that it has become extremely difficult to pack zeros and ones more densely on

63
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:44,919
the spinning magnetic platters inside these devices to be clear there are

64
00:04:42,880 --> 00:04:50,720
still cost savings to be had by running fewer higher capacity drives and filling

65
00:04:47,840 --> 00:04:54,919
them with helium gas and whatnot but those efficiency gains are nothing

66
00:04:53,280 --> 00:05:00,240
compared to the data bomb that was about to be Unleashed on YouTube 2015 was the

67
00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:06,360
first year the I phone would come standard with a 4K rear camera and 4K is

68
00:05:03,960 --> 00:05:11,360
a very different kind of Beast compared to anything that came before it with

69
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:15,720
four times the pixel count and very nearly four times the data rate I

70
00:05:14,039 --> 00:05:19,720
suspect that the only thing that saved Google servers from immediately Lighting

71
00:05:17,479 --> 00:05:24,560
on fire is that Apple configured the camera app on that generation of iPhone

72
00:05:21,639 --> 00:05:28,880
to record in 1080p by default likely not out of consideration for their bit Ral

73
00:05:26,639 --> 00:05:35,280
but rather because the base model iPhone 6s could hold about 40 minutes of 4K

74
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:38,319
footage total and also maybe because except under very specific conditions

75
00:05:37,080 --> 00:05:43,479
you could barely even tell the difference between 1080P and 4K video

76
00:05:41,240 --> 00:05:47,360
that was recorded on that phone anyway I'm going to get into more detail about

77
00:05:44,840 --> 00:05:52,560
that later the point is that even if only 10% of video uploads transitioned

78
00:05:49,800 --> 00:05:56,440
to 4K per year over the next few years YouTube would need to find some way to

79
00:05:54,720 --> 00:06:00,800
grow their revenue or they could risk becoming nonviable obviously they kept up with

80
00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:07,840
their their efforts to grow the user base with big pushes in non-english-speaking regions like India

81
00:06:04,639 --> 00:06:10,080
and Latin America but by 3 years later

82
00:06:07,840 --> 00:06:16,720
the end of 2018 YouTube had nearly cracked 2 billion with a B monthly

83
00:06:13,319 --> 00:06:18,800
active users so unless they started up

84
00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:22,520
some kind of diabolical program where they actually started breeding more

85
00:06:21,000 --> 00:06:26,960
people to consume content on their platform it was pretty clear that their

86
00:06:24,639 --> 00:06:31,280
days of exponential user growth were well behind them they needed to find

87
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:35,319
another way to get profitable and do it fast or daddy Google excuse me Alphabet

88
00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:41,560
by this point was going to do what they do best and pull the plug enter YouTube

89
00:06:38,400 --> 00:06:42,960
premium sure it did exist before this

90
00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:47,479
but it wasn't until around this time that YouTube started pushing the program

91
00:06:45,160 --> 00:06:51,199
hard they've tried various ways to add value to premium over the years through

92
00:06:49,120 --> 00:06:55,639
original content background playback and bundles with Google Play music Rip but

93
00:06:53,840 --> 00:07:00,720
of course the main attraction has always been the removal of ads how could they

94
00:06:57,960 --> 00:07:05,800
afford to remove the ads you might ask well because even for a data mining

95
00:07:02,919 --> 00:07:10,599
advertising machine like Google a paid user even for just a few dollar a month

96
00:07:08,319 --> 00:07:16,360
is worth way more than an ad supported user like it is bloody hard to make

97
00:07:13,120 --> 00:07:18,280
money on free tier ad supported content

98
00:07:16,360 --> 00:07:22,800
I mean Twitter took nearly a decade to have a single profitable year and they

99
00:07:20,199 --> 00:07:28,280
serve almost exclusively still images and text which isn't to say Google

100
00:07:25,639 --> 00:07:33,280
hasn't tried since then you've probably noticed that ads have gone from simple

101
00:07:30,680 --> 00:07:37,319
popups in the videos and pre-rolls to popups pre-rolls mid rolls and end rolls

102
00:07:35,919 --> 00:07:41,840
some of which are stacked with two or more on top of each other and a recent

103
00:07:39,560 --> 00:07:47,520
trial had Google piling up as many as 10 ads during a single content break

104
00:07:45,080 --> 00:07:51,720
yikes and this strategy of packing in more ads has served them pretty well

105
00:07:49,680 --> 00:07:55,879
with Revenue growth finally turning a corner over the last couple years

106
00:07:53,280 --> 00:08:02,560
outpacing user growth significantly the problem is that it's not enough look at

107
00:07:59,759 --> 00:08:07,720
the user upload Trend and remember that unless they start deleting old videos

108
00:08:05,159 --> 00:08:13,159
they need to store all of the previous year's uploads as well oh right and Over

109
00:08:11,000 --> 00:08:18,120
The Last 5 Years hard drive prices have essentially bottomed out following only

110
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:20,400
about 1 cent per Gigabyte making matters

111
00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:26,360
worse storage is only part of the problem on our video platform float

112
00:08:22,960 --> 00:08:30,159
plane 4K playback makes up only about 6%

113
00:08:26,360 --> 00:08:32,719
of our views but over 20% of the total

114
00:08:30,159 --> 00:08:35,760
bandwidth that we have to pay for and while it's harder to dig up solid

115
00:08:34,279 --> 00:08:40,959
historical data for this compared to hard drive costs it is clear that there

116
00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:46,480
has been a stagnation in bandwidth costs as well that is to say they're not

117
00:08:43,080 --> 00:08:48,200
getting lower how bad is it well to the

118
00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:53,959
point where Google went as far as to co-found the alliance for open media in

119
00:08:50,959 --> 00:08:56,160
2015 AO media is a Consortium whose main

120
00:08:53,959 --> 00:09:02,000
purpose so far has been to create and Foster industry support for av1 a video

121
00:08:59,079 --> 00:09:07,160
code that manages similar 1080p visual quality to h264 while requiring only a

122
00:09:04,959 --> 00:09:12,959
little over half the data transmission or bit rate ah bit rate I said I would

123
00:09:11,079 --> 00:09:17,560
talk in more detail about other factors that affect image quality and now is the

124
00:09:15,240 --> 00:09:22,959
time the second reason that I believe this move makes sense is that serving up

125
00:09:19,839 --> 00:09:25,399
more pixels isn't necessarily the best

126
00:09:22,959 --> 00:09:32,040
way to improve the user's experience and this focus on how many P's or KS a video

127
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:34,560
has has contributed to a ton of consumer

128
00:09:32,040 --> 00:09:38,959
confusion about it for starters pixel count is one contributor to the

129
00:09:36,800 --> 00:09:43,360
resolution or the perceived Clarity of an image but it is not the entire

130
00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:49,399
equation everything else is important too from shot composition to color

131
00:09:46,040 --> 00:09:51,440
management to contrast and natural bokeh

132
00:09:49,399 --> 00:09:56,800
don't believe me well here's a video I ripped off from this guy Marquez Keith

133
00:09:53,720 --> 00:10:00,000
brownley in HD that looks pretty good

134
00:09:56,800 --> 00:10:03,920
for 1080p right for comparison here's

135
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:06,079
some 4K video but from a cell phone it's

136
00:10:03,920 --> 00:10:11,000
tiny sensor low bit rate internal recording mediocre dynamic range blocky

137
00:10:08,680 --> 00:10:15,279
processing and poor image stabilization all contribute to the blurry ugly

138
00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:21,360
viewing experience that you see before you so then while there are absolutely

139
00:10:19,360 --> 00:10:26,279
creators on YouTube who invest heavily into their production values and whose

140
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:30,839
videos are best enjoyed with more pixels I think it's fair to say that they're a

141
00:10:28,360 --> 00:10:38,040
minority and I also think it's fair to say the same for users who reason number

142
00:10:33,600 --> 00:10:41,680
three mostly don't actually need 4K I

143
00:10:38,040 --> 00:10:43,480
know I know like you I want to use the

144
00:10:41,680 --> 00:10:47,720
most advanced platforms and get the absolute most out of my devices and

145
00:10:45,399 --> 00:10:53,279
services be they gigabit plus internet connections or 8K TVs but please hear me

146
00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:57,839
out while I don't support everything that Apple does I wholeheartedly support

147
00:10:55,480 --> 00:11:02,680
their use of retina branding to describe displays that are Sharp enough from a

148
00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:07,720
typical viewing distance regardless of their pixel count they rightly

149
00:11:05,680 --> 00:11:12,839
determined years ago that unless you happen to be a bird of prey you not only

150
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:17,800
do not need a 4K display on your phone but the tradeoffs in cost brightness and

151
00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:21,079
power consumption could actually make it a

152
00:11:18,839 --> 00:11:27,200
disadvantage that means that right out of the gate 43% of you watching right

153
00:11:23,680 --> 00:11:29,040
now straight up do not need 4K moving on

154
00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:34,079
the latest Steam Hardware survey shows that 4k monitor penetration is at

155
00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:40,480
roughly 15% while these numbers from Statia Peg 4K TVs at about

156
00:11:37,240 --> 00:11:44,000
44% almost all tablets top out at around

157
00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:47,279
1440p and again rightly so meaning that

158
00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:50,000
at most even if you have 2020 Vision

159
00:11:47,279 --> 00:11:55,920
only about 10% of you actually have the hardware to benefit from a 4K stream

160
00:11:52,480 --> 00:11:58,440
option well sort of one of the main

161
00:11:55,920 --> 00:12:04,279
benefits of YouTube's 4K selector is that pixel count aside it streams at a

162
00:12:01,079 --> 00:12:06,160
much higher bit rate than 1080p so in

163
00:12:04,279 --> 00:12:10,680
Practical terms that means that it has fewer compression art effects like

164
00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:14,079
bending or blocking so that even if you're watching in a small window you

165
00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:20,320
can often make out extra detail in the image but the good news is that 1440p

166
00:12:18,120 --> 00:12:24,800
offers a middle ground High bit rate option and isn't on the free tier

167
00:12:22,519 --> 00:12:30,360
chopping block at least for now and even if it was I think there's a solid non-4k

168
00:12:28,160 --> 00:12:34,519
solution to that going forward it ties in nicely with reason number four

169
00:12:32,600 --> 00:12:40,079
juicing more and more pixels through the pipes it's just plain bad inefficient

170
00:12:37,199 --> 00:12:45,160
Tech once you've got enough pixels a better way to boost perceived Clarity is

171
00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:48,600
to bump up color saturation and contrast that's where HDR comes in there's still

172
00:12:46,959 --> 00:12:52,639
some work to do on this but the word on this treat is that YouTube has been

173
00:12:50,040 --> 00:12:58,199
investing significant resources into fixing their HDR implementation which

174
00:12:55,440 --> 00:13:04,279
also won't be paywalled and will result in much higher quality 1080p video with

175
00:13:01,360 --> 00:13:08,800
a much more modest increase in data rate another area where I think YouTube could

176
00:13:05,839 --> 00:13:15,440
stand to redirect these 4K payall savings is audio quality I mean sure

177
00:13:11,639 --> 00:13:18,320
it's not as headline worthy as 4K or 8K

178
00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:23,320
or whatever but audio is hugely important especially for music videos

179
00:13:20,600 --> 00:13:28,040
which last time I checked are kind of a big deal on YouTube Google's lasay Fair

180
00:13:25,839 --> 00:13:32,440
approach to improving audio has been a point of confus Fusion for me for a long

181
00:13:30,600 --> 00:13:35,880
time and is actually one of the main drivers that brought garbage time

182
00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:42,240
streams over to our in-house video streaming platform Flo plane which by

183
00:13:38,639 --> 00:13:43,920
the way charges extra for 4K cuz it's

184
00:13:42,240 --> 00:13:47,000
expensive but it's also pretty sweet with loads of behind the scenes and

185
00:13:45,279 --> 00:13:52,040
Extras like this one go check it out Floatplane.com to be clear there's a

186
00:13:50,000 --> 00:13:56,040
big difference between what we did charging for 4K in the first place and

187
00:13:54,440 --> 00:14:00,680
the bait and switch that Google is pulling here and Google has no one to

188
00:13:58,399 --> 00:14:06,120
blame but for the backlash that they are undoubtedly going to get for this move

189
00:14:03,079 --> 00:14:07,600
this Silicon Valley money furnace don't

190
00:14:06,120 --> 00:14:12,680
worry we'll figure out how to make money later model has always seemed pretty

191
00:14:10,079 --> 00:14:20,160
short-sighted to me but the numbers make it clear that even if this causes a big

192
00:14:15,920 --> 00:14:22,320
PR hit and it will something has to give

193
00:14:20,160 --> 00:14:25,720
but I have to at least give YouTube credit for sticking to its core

194
00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:31,000
principles when it comes to supporting creators through the change unlike

195
00:14:28,199 --> 00:14:35,639
twitch who recently announced a change in Creator compensation YouTube isn't

196
00:14:33,440 --> 00:14:40,120
just cutting costs and pocketing the difference they also aren't taking away

197
00:14:37,959 --> 00:14:44,120
Creator ability to upload their videos in the highest possible quality for

198
00:14:42,120 --> 00:14:47,560
those who want it what they're doing is they're identifying an area where they

199
00:14:45,680 --> 00:14:52,160
can cut their costs to support non-paying customers convert a chunk of

200
00:14:50,120 --> 00:14:57,240
those into paying customers and then share this uplift with their creators

201
00:14:54,800 --> 00:15:02,480
which is reason number five that this makes sense a view from a premium

202
00:15:00,079 --> 00:15:07,399
subscriber is worth substantially more than an ad supported view while also

203
00:15:05,199 --> 00:15:11,839
being a better lower friction experience all around and this move is going to

204
00:15:09,680 --> 00:15:16,079
drive more revenue for creators and therefore drive more highquality content

205
00:15:14,079 --> 00:15:21,800
to the YouTube platform YouTube's position as the most desirable place for

206
00:15:18,920 --> 00:15:26,440
online creators to be is no accident they were so far ahead of the

207
00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:30,399
competition on this that no one even now has managed to catch up I mean think

208
00:15:28,199 --> 00:15:34,839
about it a aside from having crap TI your video quality Tik Tok sucks at

209
00:15:32,680 --> 00:15:40,759
compensating creators oh yeah if you go like live on there they take 80% of like

210
00:15:37,360 --> 00:15:42,880
if if people people tip or anything like

211
00:15:40,759 --> 00:15:47,319
that they'll take 80% of it you can expect the Exodus shortly after shorts

212
00:15:44,839 --> 00:15:51,360
monetization goes live next year and I already mentioned twitch which rewards

213
00:15:49,319 --> 00:15:54,720
its top tier creators pretty well but then completely falls apart once you

214
00:15:53,199 --> 00:15:59,720
start looking at anything beyond the top 1% and then there's Facebook who managed

215
00:15:57,399 --> 00:16:03,360
to rug pull a whole gener ation of starting out content creators by

216
00:16:01,480 --> 00:16:08,000
focusing hard on video and investing a bunch of money then bailing just as hard

217
00:16:06,000 --> 00:16:13,360
when the Zuck first joined VR chat and decided to how Hugh that shiz and so

218
00:16:10,480 --> 00:16:19,639
that's the real reason why YouTube keeps getting worse and you keep watching it

219
00:16:16,199 --> 00:16:22,440
because it's where all the content is so

220
00:16:19,639 --> 00:16:26,519
if I'm in YouTube's shoes I'm going he this thing cost us a fortune most people

221
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:31,839
don't really need it and some of our most successful creators don't even use

222
00:16:29,079 --> 00:16:36,279
it pay Walling 4K is kind of an obvious move but even after hearing all of this

223
00:16:34,440 --> 00:16:40,759
I can totally understand if you might conclude that Google makes so much money

224
00:16:38,800 --> 00:16:44,959
they should just suck it up and pay like they said they would the thing is though

225
00:16:43,079 --> 00:16:50,920
even if you think that they could pay and they should pay they won't pay why

226
00:16:48,120 --> 00:16:56,839
not you ask well why don't I turn that back around on you and ask why would

227
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:58,680
they the best possible argument I can

228
00:16:56,839 --> 00:17:04,839
think of for them to just keep eating this cost that is literally trending

229
00:17:01,720 --> 00:17:07,640
Skyward to a vertical line is it would

230
00:17:04,839 --> 00:17:11,360
be the good guy thing to do but Google has never done anything out of the

231
00:17:09,120 --> 00:17:15,919
goodness of their hearts so why would you expect them to start now maybe it's

232
00:17:13,679 --> 00:17:20,959
just time for the semiannual reminder that publicly held corporations Will

233
00:17:18,520 --> 00:17:25,919
Always by law act in their own self-interest and in the interest of

234
00:17:22,959 --> 00:17:31,120
their shareholders so we are left with a harsh Choice then keep the truly

235
00:17:29,000 --> 00:17:35,039
important things about YouTube and subsidize them through a small

236
00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:41,320
percentage of users you know the ones with 4K monitors and TVs or open

237
00:17:38,440 --> 00:17:44,960
ourselves up to other much worse cost cutting measures I mean what if the

238
00:17:43,120 --> 00:17:49,039
alternative is to start pruning old videos and we have to give up that

239
00:17:46,799 --> 00:17:52,919
library of rarely watched content that you might need someday when it's time to

240
00:17:50,640 --> 00:17:56,760
repair the Obscure washing machine you inherited from your Aunt Freda some

241
00:17:54,760 --> 00:18:01,280
people might feel that just adding more ads is a viable path forward but I

242
00:17:59,440 --> 00:18:06,400
honestly disagree I think we've reached a practical limit to how many ads

243
00:18:03,799 --> 00:18:10,400
YouTube can cram into a video so the revenue growth isn't going to come from

244
00:18:08,039 --> 00:18:14,280
there the av1 codec that I talked about before is more efficient and it helps

245
00:18:12,720 --> 00:18:18,919
with storage in ways that I didn't anticipate that could actually Merit a

246
00:18:15,960 --> 00:18:25,360
follow-up video but it comes with new costs particularly computational ones so

247
00:18:22,200 --> 00:18:27,400
it's not magic meaning that if this pay

248
00:18:25,360 --> 00:18:31,679
Walling 4K is what it takes to drive enough premium users that we can kick

249
00:18:29,480 --> 00:18:37,880
this data crisis a few more years down the road then I guess I'll just make

250
00:18:35,200 --> 00:18:42,559
some demands like hey at least boost the 1080p bit rate while you're ated or hey

251
00:18:40,440 --> 00:18:47,640
you should make 4K available to channel members who don't also have premium but

252
00:18:45,960 --> 00:18:52,520
the reality of it is whether YouTube listens or not I'm going to lie down and

253
00:18:49,600 --> 00:18:57,240
take it and so will you if you're being honest YouTube is essentially a monopoly

254
00:18:55,360 --> 00:19:02,440
at this point and there's not a lot we can do about it it's not bad though it's

255
00:19:00,360 --> 00:19:07,159
also one of the Bonafide Wonders of the World in my opinion and I for one live

256
00:19:05,240 --> 00:19:11,640
better with this incredible resource that helps me do everything from learn

257
00:19:09,000 --> 00:19:16,960
about black holes to fix my washing machine and allows me to tell you about

258
00:19:14,080 --> 00:19:22,240
our sponsor enlisted enlisted is a free-to-play World War II multiplayer

259
00:19:18,960 --> 00:19:26,039
shooter available on PC PS5 PS4 Xbox

260
00:19:22,240 --> 00:19:28,039
series Xs and Xbox One with crossplay

261
00:19:26,039 --> 00:19:32,760
you'll be faced in large scale combat alongside dozens of soldiers vehicles

262
00:19:30,280 --> 00:19:36,760
and aircraft directly in famous historical campaigns like the invasion

263
00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:40,520
of Normandy there's hundreds of firearms and specialized weapons from common ones

264
00:19:38,760 --> 00:19:44,320
seen throughout the war to rare prototypes that you hardly see in other

265
00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:47,760
games there's even building construction and destructible items in the

266
00:19:45,679 --> 00:19:51,880
environments if you use our link you'll get free bonuses just for signing up

267
00:19:49,720 --> 00:19:55,320
including three days of Premium Time and several orders for troops and weapons so

268
00:19:54,000 --> 00:19:59,440
head to the link in the description and start playing enlisted for free today if

269
00:19:57,799 --> 00:20:02,679
you guys enjoyed this video or maybe you didn't and you'd rather watch me tear a

270
00:20:01,039 --> 00:20:06,960
chunk out of YouTube uh you can check out one of our recent more ranty videos

271
00:20:04,559 --> 00:20:11,320
about their changes like uh the one when they removed the dislike counter