this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
80 points (89.2% liked)

Android

931 readers
1 users here now

Android news for android developers. Everything that happens in android world.

For Android development specific topics please see /c/android_dev

The Android robot is reproduced or modified from work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (14 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I've heard that yt handles around 3PB of new uploads daily. A 10TB drive is optimistically ~250$, so if you want to seriously compete with youtube, without taking into account data redundancy and, you know, actual servers and traffic, you're looking at a bare minimum of 75000$ of new hardware each day. No one can afford to burn that much money other than google.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

I've made most of my arguments in other replies, but here I'll just say this: Most of what is on YouTube is worthless garbage.

They've developed a business model around being the garbage collector and storage provider for home movies, dipshits that want to be viral by pranking people, your cousin's drum solo during their recital, every awful cover of all of your favorite songs, and some guy's unhinged political rant (recorded in his den at 2am)

I think maybe it would be ok if they posted their stuff to some federated provider that charged a few bucks per gigabyte. They sure wouldn't lose money on bandwidth; the videos wont get viewed more than once. If that.

As for actual creators? They'll be able to self host, or band together and make mini-services funded by like-minded fans (and probably some sponsors, because capitalism), and everyone will be able to access everything on an interconnected... what's the word? Oh yeah, "Internet". You know, the thing we had before 12 companies took over everything.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Those creator services exist (e.g. nebula) and are great, but they usually cost money, because video hosting is apparently too expensive to just run on donations, and competing with google on advertising is even more of an uphill battle

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I currently support Nebula. That was easy money to spend, unlike the prospect of giving YouTube anything.

Also - since they actually curate their content - there's less of it, and higher quality. Kinda speaks to some of both our points. If they had a policy of "free to all, after a while" (like a lot of patreon people do), they might well have attempted some kind of distributed hosting. Hard to say for sure, but a guy can dream.

Federated video streaming may not have all the questions answered right now, but people are already attempting it. I think the right optimizations, the right content, and the right audience will push it really far. And maybe it won't be "YouTube quality" for a while (or ever), but who needs 4k60 Minecraft/Fortnight lets-plays anyway?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)