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

Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#91

Post by create-username »

gorgoiler wrote: post #71
roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

YouTube is similar to a free museum where the gift shop as the only source of revenue. How does the museum handle people who deliberately show up without money and exit via the main entrance? From a business perspective the building is a shop. Anyone without money is provably there to just wander around looking at things. Doing this a lot is weird, especially given that 99% of visitors buy a coffee or a pencil to kee…

The gift shop clerks analyse museum CCTV footage, as well as information obtained from your license plate and credit card (where you live, what you purchase) to better organise their gift shop, your local supermarket and the news you receive; in a way that’s more alluring to you so they can better organise your behaviour to purchase and think as desired.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#92

Post by ffsm8 »

movedx wrote: post #19
roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

As a content creator with seven years experience, hundreds of videos and thousands of hours of content: just charge me a fee to host my videos. I'd pay $100/month, possibly more, to run a YouTube channel without. Why is running ads the _only_ choice? Why can't a creator opt to pay to host videos on their channel with limitations? $10/month? That's 30 videos in HD max. $100? 300 videos in 4K... etc. ... or whatever. A…

> hundreds of videos and thousands of hours of content: just charge me a fee to host my videos. I'd pay $100/month

$100 wouldn't even cover the storage mate. Let's say you've got 2 thousand hours of content (smallest amount that qualifies for "thousands")

At 2k resolution, that'd be around 30TB And you'll want to preprocess it to 1080p, 720p, 480p, so add another 15tb for the other resolutions.

And YouTube supports 4k, so if you're shooting at that resolution, you can add another 50tb on top.

Purely storage you're already looking at a ~$2500 monthly bill.

And then you're gonna have to host and serve it to hundreds of thousands of viewers, the bandwidth cost is gonna be astronomical. Every 100 hours of streamed content is gonna be another ~$100 on top. With a 15 minute video, that'd be 400 views.

And I significantly rounded down on every calculation as this is napkin math. If you'd use AWS S3 pricing for storage and egress you can safely double my dollar numbers.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#93

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

"However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly."

"Freeloading" off a $2T company. Not really. What is really going on.

If Google was concerned about "freeloading" then they would not be encouraging people to store their data "in the cloud"; they would be encouraging them to store it on their own computers. Google wants people to upload data "for free" to Google servers. They design software and hardware to coerce people into uploading, e.g., "syncing".

It's not cool to invade peoples' privacy for profit. That is a social contract that has been broken.

Google could charge fees for storing peoples' data, these fees could cover the costs and allow for some profit, but then they would not be a $2T company. Only a relatively small number of people would pay. The Google customer is the advertiser not the uploader. Thus, this alleged "social contract" to allow Google to spy on people through their computer use, including surreptitiously sending data to Google, is motivated by greed.

That's the ugly culture.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#94

Post by maxhille »

toastercat wrote: post #80
ethanol-brain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the burden is on you. The web is public by default. If you join it and think there is a burden on your visitors to pay you by viewing some bullshit that you serve them from some megacorporation who sells their identity, you are the one being unethical.

This is classic "big corporations are bad". Simply put, the internet would be dead if it were not for megacorporations as you call them, like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. Google have provided an invaluable source of information all for free. The least you can do is watch some ads and let them harvest your data.

> This is classic "big corporations are bad". Simply put, the internet would be dead if it were not for megacorporations as you call them, like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.

Source?

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#96

Post by edanm »

nielsbot wrote: post #83
pkulak wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it you don’t want to pay, and can’t handle ads, don’t use the service. I don’t understand why people think they are entitled to any content they want, when they want it, for free.

It's not quite that simple--there isn't a good alternative to YouTube.

That doesn't make it more complicated, it just makes it hurt more to give it up.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#98

Post by gizajob »

ffsm8 wrote: post #92
movedx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a content creator with seven years experience, hundreds of videos and thousands of hours of content: just charge me a fee to host my videos. I'd pay $100/month, possibly more, to run a YouTube channel without. Why is running ads the _only_ choice? Why can't a creator opt to pay to host videos on their channel with limitations? $10/month? That's 30 videos in HD max. $100? 300 videos in 4K... etc. ... or whatever. A…

> hundreds of videos and thousands of hours of content: just charge me a fee to host my videos. I'd pay $100/month $100 wouldn't even cover the storage mate. Let's say you've got 2 thousand hours of content (smallest amount that qualifies for "thousands") At 2k resolution, that'd be around 30TB And you'll want to preprocess it to 1080p, 720p, 480p, so add another 15tb for the other resolutions. And YouTube supports 4…

I’m sure you’re right but how does Google afford to do it then? Do they have methods to drastically lower those costs? $2500 per month for each creator seems like it wouldn’t be a business worth running.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#99

Post by gizajob »

create-username wrote: post #90
roenxi wrote: post #6

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of Google and I don't have a lot of respect for the YouTube selection algorithm. However this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Google is willing to host and organise a vast number of videos because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may fr…

It’s not ads, it’s tracking and profiling to better manipulate you

…by showing you more ads.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#100

Post by ffsm8 »

gizajob wrote: post #98
ffsm8 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hundreds of videos and thousands of hours of content: just charge me a fee to host my videos. I'd pay $100/month $100 wouldn't even cover the storage mate. Let's say you've got 2 thousand hours of content (smallest amount that qualifies for "thousands") At 2k resolution, that'd be around 30TB And you'll want to preprocess it to 1080p, 720p, 480p, so add another 15tb for the other resolutions. And YouTube supports 4…

I’m sure you’re right but how does Google afford to do it then? Do they have methods to drastically lower those costs? $2500 per month for each creator seems like it wouldn’t be a business worth running.

There are very, very few YouTube creators that actually have thousands of hours of video.

Even if it's a vtuber/live streamer they'd still have to publish ~6 hours every day for a full year to get to 2 thousand hours

It's pretty much the peak of the iceberg

Post reply on HN