Sadly all of those decentralized / federated app all have this same accessibility issue.
Maybe there is some sort of business case, or at least some preliminary solution to get there, that offers a middle ground between "you're only the customer of our SaaS" and "you have to be your own IT department"? something like a standardized cloud-ready deployment, where instead of only d/l the server side app, the site also points you to the cloud providers that also support that app (or this standard) so that you're just 3 clicks away from running your own instance.
That'd be nice, not sure it would pay for the team developing that standard though.
Half of the explanation here consists of explaining the very-slightly-different-but-still-entirely-natural ontology of PeerTube, to people who were expecting exactly the ontology of YouTube.
For someone who has never used YouTube as a content creator, a "Getting Started" guide for PeerTube would actually be quite short.
In trying to figure out what word you were looking for, I realized the word his migrated from philosophy to computer science and changed meaning a bit. So maybe it works in that context. Sorry.
This website isn't a service, it's the website for a piece of software you can download and host yourself. So it's not really comparable to Youtube. Explanation/documentation is normal for that kind of site.
If you want the equivalent to Youtube, take a look at something like https://framatube.org/
Content creators on PeerTube could do in-video product endorsements.. that's already a fairly standard practice on YouTube, which does support monetization.
It's a bit of chicken and egg problem though. To get in video endorsements, you need to get very popular. To get very popular, you need a more popular platform than peertube.
It depends. You obviously need a millions of subscribers to promote the 'appetite suppressant' lollipops - and you need a TV to promote the new life insurance brand. But to triple the sales of HackRF, a couple of thousands niche auditory is enough.
Sponsorships are only one form of monetization. The competitive feature for content creators here is ad revenue sharing.
The only thing I got from reading this write up is that it will be pretty easy for someone to create their own instance and throw ads on someone else's content.
This feels like a guide for an early podcast player, the way you connect to different instances and their channels using urls. Kinda refreshing actually.
peertube worked fine the few times I tried it, it's not in my mind when I want to see videos but I have to say it never felt a disappointment.. pretty neat for such an effort
My guess is that none of these things (including things like Mastadon) will become very popular. Then, one day, Amazon will create an AWS instance for it, and popularity will skyrocket.
And no, I’m not being sarcastic. I love the idea, but can’t for the life of me think what it will take to make something like this truly popular. (Though I wish I could!)
OK. So PeerTube doesn't actually host anything, right? You need a streaming server to publish. Maybe someone will let you have space and bandwidth on theirs. PeerTube is just the lookup system. Is that right?
Peertube is just the software. The linked has no lookup system, it's just a site telling you about the software, linking to sourcecode & documentation, and linking to other sites that host that software.
The primary instance references on the site (i.e. the streaming server that they embed their own videos from) is https://framatube.org/
It's using torrents through WebSockets, it would be nice if the regular torrent protocol supported them. You just need to download a torrent to stream, or be one of the peers viewing to stream it to other viewers.
PeerTube is very exciting and I've been thinking about running an instance. Only showstopper for me atm is lack of live streaming support, which admittedly is difficult to figure out.
I honestly think that article 11 and 13 will grow more decentralized options. Peertube is only federated, so it won't benefit as much as it could, but it will still help. If the platform is responsible for copyright, then it will definitely be easier to just burn that server and then spin up a new one. Just my 2 cents
Small platforms (ie business under 50 empl, or 10mil € ATO) don't have to adhere the copyright filter at all and are under the previous Notice&Takedown protection.
Maybe there is some sort of business case, or at least some preliminary solution to get there, that offers a middle ground between "you're only the customer of our SaaS" and "you have to be your own IT department"? something like a standardized cloud-ready deployment, where instead of only d/l the server side app, the site also points you to the cloud providers that also support that app (or this standard) so that you're just 3 clicks away from running your own instance.
That'd be nice, not sure it would pay for the team developing that standard though.