• EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The HLS integration we offered definitely had a premium attached to it as well as an additional cost to the CDN that required the integration to live on. So it’s not cheap.

    • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      YouTube serves probably dozens of formats/bitrates, and has spent years tweaking how it ingests, transcodes, and serves videos. Adding in-stream ads might have been a bigger engineering task in that environment. Depending on the percentage of users/viewers avoiding ads, it might not have been worth the return.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        As I know they transcode every uploaded video to their preferred format. They could use the same infrastructure for the ads. But maybe it’s really too expensive.

      • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You are correct, which goes into the cost category of doing a stream stitched integration. Also, when I left said ad server in 2016, I think I recall HLS streaming primarily supported by Apple devices. Devices like Roku’s (don’t quote me on that) didn’t support it at the time so a lot of companies looked at where the majority of their streaming was occurring and decided it wasn’t worth the hit.