shoulderoforionruh roh
ruh rohhttps://fedia.io/media/7f/9c/7f9cf260a5a3e08755ee352ce2169d0f0fff7cd053d6bd0f6be6e1ae59b731f0.jpg
OptionalWhat’s the Fediverse YouTube? ooof. that’s a tough nut.
No one understands the astronomical bandwidth, CPU/GPU intensive calcs, and data storage necessities required to do anything close to what YouTube currently does.
There is no way under this warm sun that a fediverse version of YouTube will ever be feasible, unless someone like literally yourself is willing to pay extraordinary high amounts of money for all the required infrastructure and daily maintenance to run it.
I would want to see some data on costs, because I think you might be overselling the difficulty and cost a bit (I don’t actually know, just my good faith belief). Imagine if every content creator ran their own instance. Instead of needing to worry about every user coming to a single group of servers, the Creator only needs to worry about the cost of hosting their own content and the traffic they get.
With the number of YouTubers who have to get sponsorships and Patreon anyway, it doesn’t really seem that infeasible or unreasonable to expect content creators to run their own thing or pay to have someone else to do it. Doesn’t seem like the YouTube money is that lucrative, anymore, so not like it would be all that different, either.
gbtimes.com/how-much-does-youtube/
fastercapital.com/…/YouTube-cost-structure--YouTu…
Estimated annual server cost: approximately $1 billion
Estimated annual data center cost: approximately $5 billion
Estimated bandwidth cost: $3 billion
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.
If you read the links, this includes their server clusters and employees across the entire world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
cobysevAccording 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.
According to this there 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.