Comment by pizzathyme

I hate Youtube Shorts so much that I just installed "SmartTubeNext" app on my Chromecast (suggested in the comments here about Youtube hate). So that expert team is making decisions that drive away users from their apps. The great thing about SmartTubeNext is that even though I pay Youtube to not show ads, the content I watch is often littered with in-video ads, which SmartTubeNext will automatically skip. So, is me leaving the Youtube app part of their "optimal results"? They've optimized so much they created an app that I absolutely hate. I pay for youtube, and now I'm cancelling my subscription because this other app doesn't show ads and doesn't force me to see "shorts" and other things I don't want in my Youtube experience. It seems to me that they are optimizing for paying-user cancellations.

Yup! That's the point, I'm mourning what was and shaking my fist at a cloud.

They're probably right by their metrics, they can probably rigorously prove this makes them more money. But I think its subjectively worse, it feels claustrophobic and prescriptive to me.

>As though Google doesn't have a entire team of data scientists and top tier engineers managing this experiment and driving it to optimal results. (Spoiler: they do)

Optimal for who, though?

From Google's perspective I'm sure these changes push towards a more optimal revenue generation through ads. They potentially also push a more optimal layout on tablets/phones, or for shorts content.

Meanwhile from a desktop/laptop user perspective these changes are hardly optimal, especially compared to what they were before.

> If you don't like the service, you can stop using it. And if you do, they have already factored that into their metrics guardrail, and it was the right decision.

Also likely that people find and implement workarounds. Browser extensions or interface layers (e.g. Invidious or reVanced) that block ads and/or grant user specific control over the layout. This represents a hidden cost for Google too, because now you have a subset of your user base eating up resources that you don't see ad revenue for. There's a risk as they optimize more and more for a smaller number of people that this hidden cost grows.

All in all seems like a bad long-term proposition for Google to alienate parts of their userbase that are tech savvy enough to bypass their revenue generation.

The flaw with this angle is that their success can be attributed to momentum rather than any good decision-making. They have no real competition for long-form video content. If they make a terrible decision, they can still be successful as their market has nowhere else to go to.

That is to say that "If you don't like the service, you can stop using it" isn't really true if you want to watch long-form videos on the internet. There isn't an alternative.

I have a background in human machine interaction and I can tell you without even being there to tell you that a lot of changes didn't have proper UX design work done on them.

Now they did have AB testing and likely are better at the metrics Google cares about: making money. However they are worse for users in ways that real user testing would catch. Again though, real user testing would likely cost them money.

Yes, exactly, like the entire marketing team for buggies around 1910. They really figured out what people wanted.

[flagged]