pretty sure yt has little competition, at least around western audiences (not sure how the situation is outside here), and i doubt hosting a website is actually expensive. If anything, a lot of banks are getting worried on the lack of real money they have. Thats apparently needed to revive us industry because us government doesnt want its facilities in china anymore (doensn't make sense though, the government has no problem creating money out of thin air, to save big banks). For that reason the entertainment sector is starting to monetize everything possible, squeezing out of people that on average, don't actally have all that much money.

At least that my understanding of it

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hosting regular websites with heavy traffic can start to get expensive. Video streaming is extremely expensive.

[–] salsamolle@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

wait actually didn't know this. Can you expand on that? tbh i'm quite ignorant in technology

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If one video stream to one user uses 128 kilobyte per second out of your 100 megabit internet connection 781 users can watch that stream at the same time. However, the ISP will charge you per transferred gigabyte each month. So let's say that you serve 781 users that video 24/7 in a full month of 31 days ... It will be 100 megabit divided by 8 to get 12.5 megabyte. So it's 12.5 megabyte per second. That's 750 megabyte per minute. That's 45 gigabyte per hour. That's 1 terabyte or day. So around 31 terabyte traffic per month. (If you use this much bandwidth you will get a discount but it's still not going to be

Now, that's just for 781 simultaneously users.

What is we need to serve 781000 simultaneous users?

Now, this far we've only been talking about one video on repeat 14/7. What about 100000 videos and enough programmers and computers to design as system that lets each and every user choose any video whenever they need to? Now you suddenly have thousands of servers and harddisks running in a couple of hundred places on earth 24/7.

Now this is for you to provide your users 100000 different videos even before you start to pay content creators for their hard work.

Also, you need to be available 24/7 so now you have to make backups, redundant servers on different location that can take over in case of an accident, dedicated internet connection (being alone on the internet cable is not the same as sharing it with 100 other sites) and a whole lot of other things you need to take care of.

What about offering the 500 million videos YouTube offers their users?

... and all of this cost is paid out of your pocket?

[–] salsamolle@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

By your reasoning, every single platform should be in the same shitty state of yt. Google is not as annoying, and most users don't need access to those google services that are paywalled (at least in my country). as far as i've seen, only yt and sometimes twitch put ads that you must watch in order to access their services. At least they hope we must watch them, i guess. Your argument was wonderful big numbers, but you got me with more questions than before

[–] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Text things are extremely data light. All of wikipedia's text is smaller than a 2k movie. There is absolutely data stuff happening in the background on the server that makes it more complicated, but the actual piped data that goes from a google search result is actually quite small (though larger than it used to be).

Video is at the other end. There's only so many things you can do to a video to reduce the amount of stuff you send to the user (and a lot of the things you do put more strain on the user's computer to interpret what you've sent).

Music, singular images, video game data, and mass data tend to be somewhere in the middle, though context does matter for each of them.

Comparatively, sending videos and storing videos for later use is many times a more resource-expensive task than sending an image, forum post, email, weather updates etc.

It doesn't have to be ads before videos, but it does have to be something (subscription services, the page itself being littered with ads, state backing etc).

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

By your reasoning, every single platform should be in the same shitty state of yt

What comparable platforms are you talking about that is not running ads or have some sort of pay-to-watch?

If we talk about Twitch and their revenue I can promise you that they would not be very profitable without female streamers dressed sexy that doesn't always play video games.

We now live in a world where users got used to never have to pay for content or experience. Even though Google makes insane money in different areas the cost for running and developing YouTube is huge. I'm not a fan of ads (I don't see ads when at home because of how I have set up my network) and the subscription plans always seems too pricey for the value I get when using different streaming services

But all of this doesn't change the fact that even though I don't like ads or paying for content I still haven't come up with a better solution myself.

[–] Haywire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Could something built on ipfs not compete?