tvmoleYouTube --> PeerTube Next?
Speaking of, got any good peertube channels?
Tbh, I'm more familiar with nebula and floatplane - where YT creators made their own platform. Maybe that's where things are headed
Nebula is not bad. I paid for it for a year, but had some issues with not enough content and the buggy UI on Firefox. If Youtube blocks adblockers, I'll certainly go back to it.
DustyI've looked at peertube a few times, and everytime I do, it seems to be filled with nothing but videos about the latest cryptoscamcoin. I have zero interest in that at all. Until they get content worth watching, it's not going to happen.
BitPirateI'm afraid the barrier to entry for this is much higher, as video streaming is quite expensive. You need a lot of storage and also a lot of traffic.
Yeah, good point. The others are mainly hosting text and some images
I see potential in a site that offers an alternative algorithm, or curated list of channels, but still links to youtube for the streaming itself. The content that Youtube shows me has gotten quite bad lately... and the search doesn't even work properly.
It seems like PeerTube does allow peer to peer streaming of watched videos too, so that might help mitigate the bandwidth requirements. The storage and transcoding requirements will be far larger than things like Lemmy though, agreed.
I'd expect p2p streaming to soften the blow for the traffic bill generated by popular videos. You'd always need somebody else to consume the content at the same time which doesn't happen in most cases.
If you're taking a similar route to YouTube, you also need a ton of CPU/GPU power and/or specialized hardware. YouTube transcodes every video into 2 (3 for videos with >~2M views) different formats in 5 different resolutions. A community-run service could skip on some of that, but it'd come at the cost of lower quality, less support for older devices, or higher bandwidth usage.
LosWell Google is gutting ad blockers. So maybe there will be an extremely minor exodus yet.
as disgusting as it feels, I think paying for Youtube Premium is a pretty good deal. You get no ads, and creators get much, much more money per view. I'm not sure what it is for videos, but with Youtube Music, by band gets literally ten times as much per listen from as Premium subscriber than an "ad supported" one. Given the sheer amount of otherwise free high quality material on the platform, the tiny amount they ask each month for it is pretty decent. IMO, YMMV, IANAL, consult your doctor before taking, etc
Fair point. I watch a lot of YT and block ads (though it sounds like they're finally cracking down on that).
I support some creators on Nebula and Patreon, but I guess YT Premium is basically like those.
BloonfaceMe and my partner pay jointly for Premium and I wouldn't want to go back. No ads on any device we watch on, knowing that the creators get a good chunk of change from it, is bliss.
QuentinpGot YT Premium for my family the past few years, it's been great NGL. It probably gets more use than any other streaming service, and would probably be the last paid service i gave up for video.
The Gay TrampBecause of the increased revenue to creators I don’t feel so bad about installing sponsorblock to skip in-video ads
content creators ain't gonna go to peertube since there is no monetization there. they ain't gonna just rely on patreon, and sponsorships from AG1 and surfshark.
There already are some that are fully relying on external income and leave there video unmonitized by google. But yeah most smaller channels dont have that option.
That's going to take megabucks. Huge bandwidth, storage and compute. Who's going to pay for it?
GormadtNot it
Everybody gangsta until they realise that their usage of services incurs costs
YozulIt doesn't really seem workable right now. A video platform that just lets anybody upload anything and everything onto a large main server is going to use completely absurd amounts of storage and bandwidth, so PeerTube can only really work if most people either self-host or join small communities to host their videos.
Unfortunately, PeerTube is absolutely terrible for discovering videos you'd enjoy on smaller instances. Until they can fix that, there's really no hope of it taking off. I'd love to see it happen, but we're just not there right now.
Yea, having a competitor to youtube seem near impossible. The only reason youtube survived was because Google bought them, who was able to provide them with the insane resources required for a video hosting platform. Similar to Twitch being bought by Amazon, which has AWS.
Better chance of YT -> Odysee
It might have potential and the video quality is decent, but unless they sort out their banning policy it will only attract nutjobs and all kind of anti[something]ists, [something]phobes… etc.
Reading comment sections is making me puke.
All the crypto crap is not helping as well.
I am prefering paying some money for nebula, which might not have a big creator base but everything I need, sometimes some bonus content and no ads. But this one is not for everyone.
Somewhereunknown7351Replacing YouTube is a bad idea
Cảm ơnAt the very least competition is needed.
YouTube is getting increasingly user-hostile with monetization with the huge increase in pre-roll and mid-roll ads, starting to lock resolutions above 1080p behind a paywall ( this was reported months ago but I've recently stumbled into my first two videos where 1080p60 and above was paywalled), and even getting aggressive on adblockers.
If I recall correctly, they are also testing 10 unskippable ads before sone videos now, right? Fun times ahead!
On the flip side, they provide an inherently unprofitable high-cost service that, unlike virtually all others, actually does compensate its content creators.
Nobody I talk to about this ever seems to have any idea as to where the money is supposed to come from other than not ads and not blocking adblockers and not reducing bandwidth costs. So in other words... Nowhere.
Honestly... Leave YouTube alone. Even with ads, everyone's getting a pretty good deal out of Google on that one. You don't want to be sharing or taking on their costs.
EggyheadFirst I’ve heard of alternatives to YouTube. Do they pay content creators the same or is it just people posting for free there?
YouTube pays content creators: https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/product-features/monetization/
This pay likely makes up a significant portion of YouTube creators' revenue in addition to in-video sponsor spots/whatever a creator's equivalent is. Without this kind of payment it's not likely that a YouTube competitor could take off in a meaningful way.
So können Creator auf YouTube Geld verdienen - Wie funktioniert YouTube?
Creator, die am YouTube-Partnerprogramm teilnehmen, können auf der Plattform Geld verdienen. Hier erfährst du mehr über die Monetarisierungsoptionen für Creator.
I mean: if a platform is free, and there are no ads, and it's operated on a charity model where the operator has a monetary loss, where the money for the creators can come from?
djangoThey are just offering the free service of video hosting. There are no advertisements and no paid accounts, so all they could share are costs, not income.
They are not an advertisement/monetarization service.
Abacus SwitchEach channel has a option to put your support information so people can pay you through patreon, etc. Peertube instances are offering their video hosting for free. You can put in video ads or patreon like services to enable payments. Peertube instances can ask for money as well to help with hosting costs. It's the same business model as all other federated software. The cost of video hosting is distributed by instances and also uses bittorrent to help with sharing the load.
fuserSo would it be feasible to run a peertube instance with content at sufficient scale, then inject and sell ads?
I meant in video ads as in "this video is sponsored by...". At least i think that's the case. There is no built in way to have ads in peertube. Everything would have to be supported by links to services like patreon. anyone doing what you said could be defederated.
I thought that's what you meant, but a revenue model where the hosting instance provider splits the ad revenue with creators would be better than the monopoly.
Would creators actually move there? Say what you will about YouTube but at least they usually compensate the creators.
NecoArcKbinAccountPeertube always felt hard to use, and no one has really caught on to it imo.
Memes and text comments can be easily self hosted, but video hosting requires an expensive server farm with petabytes of SSDs, bandwidth and lots of GPUs for transcoding. Ok if you make a subscription only service like nebula or floatplane, but it's impossibile to host an ad-free service and rely on the few donations.
beefcatLinus Tech Tips recently did a video where they go over the cost and complexity of running something like YouTube.
Frankly I’m surprised 4k video wasn’t locked behind Premium from the start.
Part of me wonders if YouTube could have scaled up more gracefully if they pushed a subscription option earlier (and priced it better, I hate how it’s bundled with a music service I don’t want).
Ads fucking suck, but I think most people recognize they are a necessary evil in order to run any kind of free social video platform at a meaningful scale.
i agree with that video also, free 4k video for something that most times it's just entertainment when you're doing something else, it's a bit pointless
i have a 4k monitor but most of the times i watch 720p from my invidious instance because i prefer saving my own bandwidth to the visual quality for this kind of content.
If it's a movie, then it's different, 4k it's a must
I don't think so. The idea might be nice, but Peertube has neither the audience, nor the monetisation of platforms like YouTube. Moving to peertube just isn't a good business decision for that.
Video hosting is also expensive, especially since they would also have to deal with DMCA claims and all of that. YouTube wasn't really profitable, or even breaking even until rather recently, nearly a full decade after they started. It's not really economical to do video hosting quite like that.
Peertube might be good for casual use, but I also can't see any content creators using it. (Not unlike 2005 YouTube in that sense), and the lack of content creators also means a lack of audience (and through them, content) that might attract more users over. People are more likely to move over to something like Patreon or Twitch instead.
ztbReddit has 500 million MAU, and this is a conservative estimate. Youtube on the other hand, is sitting comfortably at 4x this number, 2 billion MAU.
Considering that, and the nature of the platform, I'm pretty certain they are too big to fail.
No one is too big too fail. There just needs to be a better service, which right now there definitely is not.
ValdairAnd hosting text, images and links on decentralized servers is one thing. High bitrate video, plus the network infrastructure to serve it, is kind of a whole different ballgame. I could see this system working for some kind of torrent/file sharing service that hosts video but not a YouTube competitor.
Frankly, Mastodon already has trouble scaling just by serving up images and small bits of text, PeerTube would fall over almost instantly if it had to deal with even 1% of YouTube's volume.
Nobody's replacing YouTube, and from the perspective of a user who just wants to upload a couple of silly videos and watch thousands more, getting rid of the big corp that is willing to provide that ridiculously expensive to provide service feels like killing the goose that lays golden eggs.
its really interesting how much we want an alt to common social medias now imo. for example, streamers are migrating from Twitch to Kick, and as you mentioned, Youtube to PeerTube/rumble
All these companies are constantly pushing just how greedy they can be and it's getting so tiresome. Short term gains and shareholders are the worst thing to happen to a free Internet aside from governments
Doubt it, it's expensive to host and creators won't have ways to ways to monetize it as easily as YouTube.
Also, I wouldn't really call the Twitter and Reddit cases "exodus". As much as I would like to see the fediverse succeed, the number of users on mastodon and Lemmy are just a blip on the radar.
I still see the same links on my Lemmy frontage days after they have been submitted, it's far less active than Reddit.
estyThe lemmy front page default sort is currently broken IIRC. try sorting by new comments.
I tried sorting by "New", and while that does show me new content, it won't show me new content that the community thinks it's good (that's the whole point about having a voting system).
I've changed from the default (i.e. "Active") into "Hot", but the frontpage is still very stale.
One reddit feature I do miss is the ability to automatically hide posts that you already upvoted or downvoted. That would keep my frontpage relatively fresh.
The good thing about Lemmy is that it's open source. Community requests are easy to make and will be discussed. Creating third party apps should not be an issue either.
The bad thing about Lemmy, on the other hand, is that it's open source. There's no VC funding to hire hundreds of overpaid developers to fix things quickly, so we just have to be a bit patient and give the devs time to make the necessary changes.
Yes, I'm fully aware of that, and I'm OK with waiting. I've been favouring the use of open-source software for a long time, and that's not about to change.
Just pointing out some areas that could potentially have a large ROI when it comes to the devs' time.
I still see the same links on my Lemmy frontage days after they have been submitted, it's far less active than Reddit.
That problem stopped the instant I switched to Kbin. There is a ton of activity happening that you are missing.
Are there any plans to federate instances across both platforms? (i.e. allow for subscriptions)
I still see the same links on my Lemmy frontage days after they have been submitted, it’s far less active than Reddit.
Use sort by Top -> Day. The algorithm for that one is working.
Art [he/him] 🌈Hosting and bandwidth for videos has a big cost. Though I do wonder what these costs would be for an individual creator to host their own creations.
I admit I haven't looked into how PeerTube works, with regards to space and bandwidth. If the federation is only at account-level and not space/bandwidth, it could be just a matter of propping up an instance where only the creator can upload videos.
Hosting and bandwidth for videos has a big cost.
Plus it's computationally expensive. YouTube has entire data centers filled with servers using custom silicon to encode ingested videos into nearly every resolution/framerate and codec they serve, so that different clients get the most efficient option for their quality settings and supported codecs, no matter what the original uploader happened to upload. Granted, that workflow mainly makes sense because of bandwidth costs, but the high quality of the user experience depends on that backend.