• Osayidan@social.vmdk.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    Hopefully once the issue of the ridiculous amount of resources needed for such a service is resolved. This is why we don’t have any viable youtube alternative yet, especially one that isn’t a corporate pile of junk. Once you get to a certain size if you don’t rake in the cash you shut down. So hopefully peer to peer saves the day.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      yup, even youtube isn’t profitable. Video remains one of the largest sinks of resources. A 4K movie is stored on a disc of about 66GB, so about 30GB per hour of 4k video. Even with peertube it’d take the best hobbyists to run even a modest server for a few streamers. We’re talking people with PB level of storage capacities now with fiber lines to their house to truly host peertube alternatives, and if we’re talking cloud we’re talking thousands per month.

      It’s not impossible, I don’t want to get people down, but that’s the major hurdle

      • AK1@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Every video maker should host his own peertube instance with only 1 user.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          yeah but then we get a youtube esque site of nerds who love hoarding hard drives and setting up selfhosted services. Which is great, I did that, but the vast majority of youtubers don’t have the knowledge/don’t want to set that up

      • Xuerian@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Which makes me wonder - was the push for 60fps across the platform a move to make competition harder?

        I’m not aware of anyone that was using it as a leg up on them.

      • pootriarch@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        this is true. having said that - i follow a peertube-based french outfit called blast (can’t speak french, just look at the pictures). if i go to a different site (peertube.stream, liberta.vip) and look at a video, the streams are coming off video.blast-info.fr.

        there’s no question video is a huge resource suck, and that nobody would want to host a lot of other people’s videos. i just wonder, if the model is federated indexes but owner-hosted video, i wonder if there’s a use case that can work at scale.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I do like the idea of having individuals host their own channels, but the bar for entry needs to become incredibly simple. Granted kids can spin up minecraft servers now, so at least that easy for online hosting. Self hosting is a bit more arduous for sure, but if people can host their own plex servers then I’d expect most video creators to be able to run peer tube - when it gets that easy.

    • dog@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      hopefully 💙 video codecs have gotten pretty good, and maybe they’ll get even better to where, like you’re saying, we don’t have to shovel so many resources into hosting something like a peertube. crossing fingers 🤞