Really wish there was a better way to host videos that doesn’t require a multibillion dollar company’s backing
Archive.org. For now. But people keep uploading full copyrighted movies to it and there appears to be no content moderation, so at some point there will be a massive lawsuit and it will be shut down. And that will be an incredibly sad day because it is currently also a source of useful public domain footage like the Prelinger Archives. Without the Internet Archive, we will not have a non-commercial archive of public domain footage.
There will never be another one again. Storage, Bandwidth, Server, etc etc costs would be too astronomical for anyone but another multi-billion dollar company to spin up a competitor.
There are small scale niche efforts, Like for guntubers, or that stupid members only floatplane thing, but none of them will ever compete with youtube, because they don’t have the scale or reach. and never will.
and considering i’ve never heard about it until you just mentioned it, I guess that means its very not big and very not a youtube competitor.
Also, a p2p video site will never work. cause you will just be offloading the bandwidth and storage burdens onto individuals who are far far less equipped to handle suhc things on their personal connections than a major video provider.
I believe it works like Bittorent (and things like Windows updates) where there is a swarm of peers that simultaneously upload and download to/from eachother, so the original creator, or any single user, doesn’t necessarily need much bandwidth. There are some disadvantages to this, but it is manageable, and works for many other things. If it actually became a thing, I imagine sponsored/patreon-funded creators would pay someone to seed their videos to ensure availability and quality. Fans would probably help too. Technically, it’s a viable option.
But yeah, with how walled-garden the Internet has become, it probably won’t become popular without massive amounts of marketing and doing things like signing exclusivity deals with popular creators, which needs a lot of money.
Thats still going to get up petabytes of bandwidth at scale, and it will be sobs like you eating the cost of it. Which is why it’ll never work.
Bandwidth is cheaper the bigger in bulk you buy it, which is pretty much the only reason youtube of today is viable at all… All your peer2peer idea does is the same thing that every business in America does… Socialize the costs and privatize the profits.
It has been a long time since i’ve heard someone go crazy on the whole “p2p can fix anything/everything” spiel though. Its long since been overtaken by the whole “blockchain can fix anything/everything” spiel, so it was quite nostalgic hearing it again.
Thanks :) I’ve always been extremely pro-decentralization (that does not use blockchains to “solve” byzantine fault tolerance and sybil vulnerabilities). I’m fine with things being somewhat less efficient if they’re decentralized, and fine with creators and fans eating the costs about things they’re passionate about (though it would probably turn semi-decentralized with companies offering seeding/content-delivery services at low cost). The rise of symmetric home fiber connections further increases viability. But, I agree that it likely will never become mainstream.
Has anyone else noticed that if a video says ‘like and subscribe’ the subscribe button does a little animation to draw your eye to it?
Really wish there was a better way to host videos that doesn’t require a multibillion dollar company’s backing
Archive.org. For now. But people keep uploading full copyrighted movies to it and there appears to be no content moderation, so at some point there will be a massive lawsuit and it will be shut down. And that will be an incredibly sad day because it is currently also a source of useful public domain footage like the Prelinger Archives. Without the Internet Archive, we will not have a non-commercial archive of public domain footage.
That was youtube, before it was sold.
There will never be another one again. Storage, Bandwidth, Server, etc etc costs would be too astronomical for anyone but another multi-billion dollar company to spin up a competitor.
There are small scale niche efforts, Like for guntubers, or that stupid members only floatplane thing, but none of them will ever compete with youtube, because they don’t have the scale or reach. and never will.
Not much server storage and bandwidth is needed if using p2p, like peertube.
and considering i’ve never heard about it until you just mentioned it, I guess that means its very not big and very not a youtube competitor.
Also, a p2p video site will never work. cause you will just be offloading the bandwidth and storage burdens onto individuals who are far far less equipped to handle suhc things on their personal connections than a major video provider.
I believe it works like Bittorent (and things like Windows updates) where there is a swarm of peers that simultaneously upload and download to/from eachother, so the original creator, or any single user, doesn’t necessarily need much bandwidth. There are some disadvantages to this, but it is manageable, and works for many other things. If it actually became a thing, I imagine sponsored/patreon-funded creators would pay someone to seed their videos to ensure availability and quality. Fans would probably help too. Technically, it’s a viable option.
But yeah, with how walled-garden the Internet has become, it probably won’t become popular without massive amounts of marketing and doing things like signing exclusivity deals with popular creators, which needs a lot of money.
Thats still going to get up petabytes of bandwidth at scale, and it will be sobs like you eating the cost of it. Which is why it’ll never work.
Bandwidth is cheaper the bigger in bulk you buy it, which is pretty much the only reason youtube of today is viable at all… All your peer2peer idea does is the same thing that every business in America does… Socialize the costs and privatize the profits.
It has been a long time since i’ve heard someone go crazy on the whole “p2p can fix anything/everything” spiel though. Its long since been overtaken by the whole “blockchain can fix anything/everything” spiel, so it was quite nostalgic hearing it again.
How does torrentijg work, then?
Not at all, if you are trying to serve a file to millions, if not billions, of simultaneous user downloads.
Thanks :) I’ve always been extremely pro-decentralization (that does not use blockchains to “solve” byzantine fault tolerance and sybil vulnerabilities). I’m fine with things being somewhat less efficient if they’re decentralized, and fine with creators and fans eating the costs about things they’re passionate about (though it would probably turn semi-decentralized with companies offering seeding/content-delivery services at low cost). The rise of symmetric home fiber connections further increases viability. But, I agree that it likely will never become mainstream.
everyone speaks boldly until they get a ISP bill for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of their local exchange equivalent of dollars.
Floatplane is more of a *patreon competitor than YouTube.
What’s wrong with visually indicating the thing being talked about?