• megopie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tempted to looking in to self hosting video content, it’s a real storage hog, but if compressed, I imagine some of the mid sized youtube channels could afford to do so, the real shame will be the difficulty for smaller creators to get discovered without a common platform.

    • upstream@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem isn’t storing it, it’s hosting and delivering content.

      YouTube, Netflix, and all the other big streaming platforms have huge amounts of servers around the world delivering content with minimal latency and without saturating the Internet exchanges with gigantic amounts of data traffic.

      If we were to do this peer-2-peer people would have to get used to waiting for pages and videos to load again.

      • megopie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So long as the video runs continuously once the page loads, I’m not particularly bothered by latency. Admittedly I’m not everyone, but I think most people care more about the content than the UX. I mean, hell, YouTube has a pretty miserable UX in different ways, not from lack skill on the part of the people who make and maintain it or limitations of technology, but from the poor cooperate incentives and goals that govern it.

        • upstream@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It probably wouldn’t. Or you would have to wait a long time.

          Try streaming from a site across the world and see how it is today. Then imagine saturating the networks with loads of it.

          Would definitely need new infrastructure to cache popular content.