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

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#101

Post by stavros »

MBCook wrote: post #36
stavros wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that I don't care. I've had it with everyone wanting "just" $9.99/mo. I watch a few random two-minute videos a day, that's not worth as much as Netflix to me. I don't want the TV shows, I don't want the music channels, I just want to watch my little videos without ads. How much are you making from me on ads? Just charge me that and remove them.

Then watch with ads. That’s a fair choice. Why are you entitled to ad free viewing? “It’s only a few so it’s ok I take something for nothing” is not a legal concept I think would hold up in other contexts.

I said I'm happy to pay whatever they make from ads from me, where are you getting the "for nothing" part?

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#103

Post by 2-3-7-43-1807 »

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 think your pricing is quite a little bloated. Having said that, nobody can even in a lifetime produce thousands of hours of valuable content. But the fact that it's free to do so has content creators dump all their crap on youtube instead of being forced to cut it down to actually valuable 1% of it.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#104

Post by roenxi »

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…

That seems like someone has some extremely comfortable margins, $2,500/month could buy me ~50TB of hard disk space at consumer prices. I'm sure that sort of estimate is undercalling the complexity of a storage operation, but nonetheless - there'd have to be some discounts to be found. If nothing else, Backblaze claims to be able to store that much for $300/month.

$100/month for 50TB probably isn't feasible but start compromising on resolution and something could be made to work.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#105

Post by ffsm8 »

roenxi wrote: post #104
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…

That seems like someone has some extremely comfortable margins, $2,500/month could buy me ~50TB of hard disk space at consumer prices. I'm sure that sort of estimate is undercalling the complexity of a storage operation, but nonetheless - there'd have to be some discounts to be found. If nothing else, Backblaze claims to be able to store that much for $300/month. $100/month for 50TB probably isn't feasible but start…

To get 50TB usable storage you're gonna need at least 100TB, otherwise everything will go down once a single disk fails until you've restored the raid.

Unless you want to be completely capped and unable to ever publish again you're gonna have to add at least a few TB (+10TB, 120TB total) and then you'll need a secondary storage for backup, so another 60 TB, 180TB total

At $320 per 16TB disk that can handle being active 24/7 (actually only ~14 TB usable, but let's ignore that) you're left with $3750 at the very least, ignoring that you'll have to continuously replace them, electricity is also pretty expensive with HDDs. House them in a server etc

You too are wildly off with your math, as I'm literally flooring every calculation. Realistic estimates by a professional are gonna be _way_ higher, especially because this kind of storage doesn't have the iops to serve video to multiple consumers. It'd be at best a NAS that can serve to maybe 2-4 ppl at a time

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#106

Post by roenxi »

ffsm8 wrote: post #105
roenxi wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like someone has some extremely comfortable margins, $2,500/month could buy me ~50TB of hard disk space at consumer prices. I'm sure that sort of estimate is undercalling the complexity of a storage operation, but nonetheless - there'd have to be some discounts to be found. If nothing else, Backblaze claims to be able to store that much for $300/month. $100/month for 50TB probably isn't feasible but start…

To get 50TB usable storage you're gonna need at least 100TB, otherwise everything will go down once a single disk fails until you've restored the raid. Unless you want to be completely capped and unable to ever publish again you're gonna have to add at least a few TB (+10TB, 120TB total) and then you'll need a secondary storage for backup, so another 60 TB, 180TB total At $320 per 16TB disk that can handle being acti…

> ...as I'm literally flooring every calculation.

But your calculations are for a different problem. You're not solving for "what is the best I can do for $100". You're solving for "what do I need to clone Google's infrastructure for thousands of hours of video footage".

Eg, you doubled the amount of storage space to avoid rebuilding RAIDs when a disk goes down. There is an obvious alternative - don't do that, let the RAID go down and rebuild it while eating the downtime. That sort of thing isn't a big deal for discount video hosting. Maybe even force people to keep their own backups.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#107

Post by ffsm8 »

roenxi wrote: post #106
ffsm8 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get 50TB usable storage you're gonna need at least 100TB, otherwise everything will go down once a single disk fails until you've restored the raid. Unless you want to be completely capped and unable to ever publish again you're gonna have to add at least a few TB (+10TB, 120TB total) and then you'll need a secondary storage for backup, so another 60 TB, 180TB total At $320 per 16TB disk that can handle being acti…

> ...as I'm literally flooring every calculation. But your calculations are for a different problem. You're not solving for "what is the best I can do for $100". You're solving for "what do I need to clone Google's infrastructure for thousands of hours of video footage". Eg, you doubled the amount of storage space to avoid rebuilding RAIDs when a disk goes down. There is an obvious alternative - don't do that, let th…

I'm adressing the original comment (by movedx) of giving channels on YouTube the ability to disable ads and let the channel provider/creator eat the cost instead.

So yes, I'm basing my calculations on YouTubes service. What you're imagining is obviously an option for individuals that only want to serve to few individuals at a time, but is entirely offtopic to what was proposed here

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#108

Post by DavideNL »

cozzyd wrote: post #46
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…

What do you think of something like nebula?

Yea, i also wonder how people feel about Nebula [1] as an alternative;

It seems the problem is, with YouTubes monopoly, other services have almost no chance to succeed because of the "Network Effect"...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula_(streaming_service)

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#109

Post by roenxi »

ffsm8 wrote: post #107
roenxi wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...as I'm literally flooring every calculation. But your calculations are for a different problem. You're not solving for "what is the best I can do for $100". You're solving for "what do I need to clone Google's infrastructure for thousands of hours of video footage". Eg, you doubled the amount of storage space to avoid rebuilding RAIDs when a disk goes down. There is an obvious alternative - don't do that, let th…

I'm adressing the original comment (by movedx) of giving channels on YouTube the ability to disable ads and let the channel provider/creator eat the cost instead. So yes, I'm basing my calculations on YouTubes service. What you're imagining is obviously an option for individuals that only want to serve to few individuals at a time, but is entirely offtopic to what was proposed here

I think if you reread the comment you'll find that movedx didn't propose what you think he proposed. At no point did he suggest what you seem to be cost-estimating.

He suggested $100/month for 300 videos and noted that he was experienced in content creating.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#110

Post by toastercat »

twiceaday wrote: post #82
Unai wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think neither legality nor ad-free viewing entitlement are even factors in this conversation. What I'm entitled to is to do whatever I want with every bit of data I download through my browser. The day this stops being the way things are, is the day the web dies, and I can't believe anyone (particularly here) could be defending that. YouTube provides their data freely. You don't have to sign-up or accept a co…

Would you take fruit from an unmanned fruit stand that just has a sign of how much money to put into the box / venmo? They have no security and no way to "enforce" that you pay! It's not about stealing at all, it's about me doing anything I want and am not physically prevented from doing! If they don't like it they should hire staff! Not every proper behavior is enforced. You are always free to be a jerk. And it's pr…

Hit the nail on the head. Adblock is morally equivalent to theft and always has been. Unfortunately, it has often been conflated with this noble idea of privacy, but it is generally understood the purpose of privacy tools is violate social contracts.
Post reply on HN