Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Valodim 814 days ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "disruption" here. Offering video content at scale costs a lot of money, it's gotta come from somewhere. And the options are users directly (YouTube Premium), users indirectly (ads), product investment by a large company (old YouTube), or financial investment by VC. Pick your poison?
5 comments

Nevertheless there are a ton of very high quality, and seemingly successful, streamed-prerecorded pirate video sites these past few years, and One might assume their users be more adblocky than google's users.

Oh and also porn sites I guess, and what's the advertising worth there vs on youtube

The difference is that people upload 500 hours of video[1] to Youtube every minute. I honestly can't even fathom how much data that is.

1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-up...

Ok, and why should I as a user care about this? No one asked youtube to become a monopoly and I don't exactly have much compassion for the engineering woes that come with this.

I'd be perfectly fine with an upload cap if that reduces the hosting cost in any way. But of course that would be against the "groth at any cost" mantra.

You don't have to "care", but I think this is a huge reason (in addition to the network effect) that people continue to use Youtube. Where else can you store an unlimited amount of video for free, for approximately forever?
Content rights are a big part of the cost, and criminal enterprises won't attract too many original content creators I'd wager.
Are those pirate video sites P2P? Or how do they work?
It would be nice if I didn't have to subsidize Youtube Music to get no ads.
Who funds public libraries? That’s who I will get video from when google dies. They have already solved the last mile problem.
TikTok could do it.
By showing ads.
Peertube uses Peer to Peer connections between users to share bandwidth and use less managed infrastructure. But it's not centralized, so capitalists are not happy with it