• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Sure, but you’re assuming all content is on one server. With something like PeerTube, content is federated.

      That said, I don’t think federation is the solution here because a popular video is going to completely swamp that instance, but something P2P would probably work if you can stream from multiple seeders. Even if you copy like we do w/ Lemmy, you’d still end up with a handful of instances that are way more popular than the rest and those would get hammered if there’s a particularly popular video.

      If you can spread that $6B (ignoring bandwidth here) over 10M people, you end up with a very reasonable $600/year, and costs would go down as more people join the network. I also assume a lot of that is duplication to handle demand spikes, which is baked in to the P2P system, so a P2P system would probably be way cheaper to scale up.

      • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        If you read the links, this includes their server clusters and employees across the entire world all doing complex load balancing and maintenance.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Sure, and none of that is necessary with a proper P2P system. If I’m torrenting something, it’ll naturally pull from seeders near me over seeders on the other side of the planet, so load balancing happens by every client being greedy.

          The complex load balancing is only necessary because it’s a centralized service.

          • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            This protocol already exists and so does the system, PeerTube.

            Why no significant quantity of people use it is apparent after you try it for a while; the entire server system cannot handle the commensurate volume of content and interactions that YouTube is popular for.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              I thought PeerTube’s problem was largely federation (need to know which servers to use), which results in making it hard to find content to watch and probably has something to do with how load balancing works (i.e. are you mostly streaming from your instance?). I think Lemmy has a similar problem, but it’s at least pretty fast because text and images are a lot easier to manage than video.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        but something P2P would probably work if you can stream from multiple seeders

        Which is, in fact, exactly how PeerTube works: it’s got BitTorrent built right into it.

        Frankly, it’s ridiculous how people keep harping on this “problem” as if it isn’t long since solved.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          I thought it was largely federated? I don’t know how the internals work, so I don’t know what group of peers it’ll pull from.

          Regardless, the problem PeerTube has little to do with its technical foundation IMO, but the network effect. If we get people to start using it, either we’ll fix it or we’ll develop something better, but getting creators to move is the first step.

    • cobysev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      According to that first link, it costs $6.1 billion to $11.7 billion annually to run YouTube. Even if you segment that into niche video communities, it’ll still cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually to host it, if you get a decent amount of traffic.

      This is why YouTube is a monopoly. Because they have the ridiculous amount of money to throw at a “free” video hosting site. Any other video host would crumble under the weight of YouTube’s level of traffic. That’s also why some others, like Nebula, require a subscription model to function. Or any movie/TV show streaming service. They can’t afford to host that stuff for free.

      This is also why Google is so obsessed with cracking down on anti-ad software. That’s how they make the money that pays for YouTube.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        According to this, as of Jan 2024 there were 14 Billion videos on Yt. So effectively a dollar and change to host a video for all YT users.

        Obviously it doesn’t work like that, but if the above commenter’s point was that I, a content creator, host my video and manage my own costs, and that video is linked via whatever federation, I can monetize and limit as needed as a creator, thus popular videos get paid to host, and unpopular videos are hosted for more or less table stakes because they’re only getting X hits per Month.

        Some kind of WordPress-like container with a built-in safety switch for overages and - hey presto. Well, it’s a thought anyway.

        I dunno, it seems do-able, even if the Great Unwashed are going to stick with YT and getting ads up the wazoo to see “I Stuffed My Face In A Fusion Reactor - Watch What Happens Next” and the like.