Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

ymcinema.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 317 posts

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#291

Post by Ir0nMan »

sireat wrote: post #119

I have over 500 unlisted (meaning you need to have the link to watch it) tutorial videos (30-180mins each) on Youtube. They are used for various programming classes that I teach. Each gets 10-100 views depending on class size. I know that Youtube is a ticking time bomb for those not monetizing the videos to Google liking. Enough horror stories from HN and friends. So I would love to find an alternative but each time…

Self hosting is a fairly straight forward option: A simple VPS (linode, digital ocean, etc) and upload your .mp4 videos. If your videos are in a weird format all it takes is a single pass through Handbrake to make them stream-able friendly. You will have native HTML5 playback in the browser and have full control of your files and links.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#292

Post by bsder »

bryans wrote: post #134
neilv wrote: post #29

This sounds like a potentially great business clarity move: > We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube” But this part -- bait&switch, with only one week to decide or move, (if that's accurate) -- is not what you want from your B2B solution provider: > “I was already paying $200 a year, which I think is pretty expensive,” [...] if she wanted to keep hosting her content on the site, she’d need to upgrade…

> "I was already paying $200 a year, which I think is pretty expensive," In other words, she has no idea what bandwidth or server costs are and doesn't realize Vimeo is definitely losing money on distributing her videos, but still arrogantly believes she is entitled to infinite bandwidth for free because "that's what YouTube does."

"Nice videos you got there. Shame if something were to happen to them. Now pay us $3,000 by the end of the week."

Now do you understand why people are mad?

The price isn't relevant. Giving someone less than a week to completely uproot themselves is extortion, plain and simple. It may even be illegal--I smell a class-action incoming.

My guess is that most people will cough up for a month or two and then leave. I know that I would definitely migrate off of a company which extorted me once.

However, that is equivalent to a quick infusion of a couple years of cash to Vimeo for quite a few of these customers. A quick pump of the numbers might get them a deal with somebody if this doesn't net them enough bad press.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#293

Post by computer23 »

hannasanarion wrote: post #150
bobitsaboy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even a sensible or pro-rated increase. Just a shakedown.

Tell that to Sunny Singh, the other Vimeo user who was featured in the Verge article, who did the math himself and had to admit that he was costing Vimeo $2500/yr.

Your comment is false. Singh did an analysis and used the analysis to negotiate to a $2,500/year rate. He didn't "admit" anything about what it could be costing Vimeo.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#294

Post by chockchocschoir »

bryans wrote: post #241
chockchocschoir wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems you are the one who doesn't have any idea about how much "bandwidth" really costs, which is $0. When peering happens, do you think they put quota on how much bandwidth you can send through? No, you have a throughput limit but then after that its unmetered. No way Vimeo is paying per TB served if they hope to one day make profits (unless they already do so). You can easily setup your own personal video hosting s…

Your insistence that access, peering and infrastructure costs equal $0 couldn't be further from the truth, and unmetered doesn't mean infinite, so your entire premise is false to begin with. Vimeo is not running on a $100/mo server, and that you believe you understand their costs better than they do is ridiculous and shameful.

That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the $/month "bandwidth" charge cloud entities charges is $0, which is true, they don't pay per volume, they pay for other things in their agreements for peering and so on.

> Vimeo is not running on a $100/mo server, and that you believe you understand their costs better than they do is ridiculous and shameful.

Who have said such a thing? Not me, so it's a bit ridiculous and shameful you're writing this in a reply to me.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#295

Post by chockchocschoir »

ozim wrote: post #275
chockchocschoir wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not alone! So many people are being "brought up" in the web/server world only knowing cloud hosting which is super expensive, and not many know about the "old world" of dedicated instances. Prices haven't changed a lot for a long time, for as long as I know, just that people are being steered to use cloud more and more.

How reliable are those "unmetered old world hostings", because "old world" hostings for me mean they can go down any time and I can call them as much as I want and no one will pick up. If AWS is down I don't have to call anyone, half of the internet is already twitting/posting it and they will be up quite soon.

> How reliable are those "unmetered old world hostings", because "old world" hostings for me mean they can go down any time and I can call them as much as I want and no one will pick up.

Yeah, that's not what that means at all. When you're on a dedicated instance, your greatest enemy is no longer the data center or the company you rent from, but it is yourself, and you'll probably be the biggest cause for any downtime as the hoster will leave your instance alone for as long as they possibly can. If someone goes wrong, you usually have access to support that can physically reset it for you and they'll do it quickly. Dedicated instance also doesn't mean with redundancy, so you'll survive with one or more instances down for some period of time.

But you don't have to trust me for it. Check what kind of uptime famous companies like Hurricane Electric Vultr or Hetzner typically have so you could update your outdated view on dedicated hosting.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#296

Post by Aeolun »

ugjka wrote: post #186
smileybarry wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's CloudFront, one of the most expensive CDNs out there. (And that's before considering customers like Vimeo can get special rates, even 50% off is common) Another example on the opposite end is a host like Hetzner, where you get 20TB of traffic at 10Gb/s uplink for any cloud VM at $5+/month (or any root server at $40+/month). Comparably, AWS EC2 is $0.17/GB IIRC. On another note -- it looks like Vimeo are us…

You can't compare Hetzner boxes with CDNs. Imagine someone trying to stream a 4K video from your Hetzner box in Finland to Australia. Not the same as directly from local CDN node

You can do it as easily with a bunch of cloudflare boxes hosted at strategic points around the globe.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#297

Post by Aeolun »

tyingq wrote: post #147
Aeolun wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one that thinks 2TB is pretty low for a plan that costs $75/month?

It is low for just bandwidth, but I imagine the assumption is that it also represents the relative scale/cost for transcoding, storage, etc, as well. It still isn't cheap compared to diy, but that's what you're paying for, I guess.

I was trying to say the amount of bandwidth does not correctly relate to the other components. Someone uploading things at that plan will very quickly hit 2TB in bandwidth.

The plan itself may still be reasonable.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#298

Post by bryans »

chockchocschoir wrote: post #294
bryans wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your insistence that access, peering and infrastructure costs equal $0 couldn't be further from the truth, and unmetered doesn't mean infinite, so your entire premise is false to begin with. Vimeo is not running on a $100/mo server, and that you believe you understand their costs better than they do is ridiculous and shameful.

That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the $/month "bandwidth" charge cloud entities charges is $0, which is true, they don't pay per volume, they pay for other things in their agreements for peering and so on. > Vimeo is not running on a $100/mo server, and that you believe you understand their costs better than they do is ridiculous and shameful. Who have said such a thing? Not me, so it's a bit ridic…

> That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the $/month "bandwidth" charge cloud entities charges is $0, which is true, they don't pay per volume, they pay for other things in their agreements for peering and so on.

I used the colloquial phrase "bandwidth and server costs" to describe all of the things that go into delivering packets, without needing to discuss individual expenses, because those weren't relevant and don't mean anything to anyone not in a tech role. You decided to redefine that to mean "exclusively per-TB transfer charges" -- you even nitpicked the word "bandwidth" and ignored the word "server" because you needed to change the truth to fit your narrative.

Your trolling is outrageous.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#299

Post by vlovich123 »

chockchocschoir wrote: post #210
vlovich123 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re generally correct although it’s slightly more nuanced. There are places in the world where peering isn’t free (eg Australia) and even mandated by law not to be (Eg SK).

I'm not saying the peering itself is free (it depends wildly, peering conditions/agreements are setup on a case-by-case basis often), but the amount of TB/month you include in the peering is not something I've seen before. Could you share what law mandates that traffic has to be priced by amount send in a time interval in peering agreements? Or is this just a misunderstanding?

http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=8... https://blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world...

Both links talk about SK regulations, the latter more directly:

> This may be driven by new regulations from the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, which mandate the commercial terms of domestic interconnection, based on predetermined “Tiers” of participating networks

It could be a miscommunication but you’re being a little unclear with your language. If you’re saying that the $/TB is $0 then you’re not strictly true everywhere. Additionally, even if peering is 0-rated between large cloud providers, it isn’t necessarily true for Vimeo if they’re a customer. It depends on the agreements they’re able to strike with their providers, or the terms they’re able to get for their own peering agreements (even if large cloud providers 0-rate each other’s traffic, they may not do so for smaller customers).

If you’re saying that costs are variable based on how many TB you transfer I can’t say, but practically I doubt it would matter. But the contract can state that peering is charged $x/TB above the Y TB included in your annual minimum spend of Z hundreds of dollars.

Of course amortized over Vimeo’s volume this (wildly speculating on my part) probably amounts to several dollars per month or even per year and most of their customers are unlikely to be in SK or Australia where this issue is most prevalent. So in practice most businesses do often see 0-rated transit costs.

Disclaimer: this all my secondary hand information and I’m not particularly knowledgeable in this space. I would defer to anyone who actually strikes these peering deals regularly.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#300

Post by ev1 »

plorkyeran wrote: post #282
hannasanarion wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube is ad-supported. You can't upload videos more than 15 minutes long without letting Youtube put preroll and mid-roll ads all over them, and the only access-control method it supports is "unlisted", where anybody with the URL can see it. Creators don't want to force their paying Patreon supporters to watch ads for content that they paid for, and that can be leaked to the whole world if somebody merely ctrl-vs a…

> the only access-control method it supports is "unlisted", where anybody with the URL can see it. Google Workspace supports videos which are private to an organization, but it's annoying to use (you have to switch your active account to the Workspace one) and much, much more expensive than Vimeo's new pricing scheme if you used it just for private videos.

In the use case of this context, where the business (patreon creator) publishes a video, none of the viewers will be in a Workspace organisation, unfortunately.
Post reply on HN