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

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#111

Post by ffsm8 »

roenxi wrote: post #109
ffsm8 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Literally the the first paragraph

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#112

Post by pixxel »

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…

Don’t be torn. They could have offloaded the hosting using P2P tech, but they prefer to silo the world’s video library. Google is the parasitical leech.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#113

Post by MBCook »

stavros wrote: post #101
MBCook wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You don’t get to set the terms. Google has provided 3 reasonable ones: ads, subscription, don’t visit.

You can’t walk into Best Buy and demand a TV for $7 because that’s how much profit the company makes on it. You’ll be laughed at and security may suggest you go elsewhere.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#114

Post by stavros »

MBCook wrote: post #113
stavros wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don’t get to set the terms. Google has provided 3 reasonable ones: ads, subscription, don’t visit. You can’t walk into Best Buy and demand a TV for $7 because that’s how much profit the company makes on it. You’ll be laughed at and security may suggest you go elsewhere.

The web has provided another reasonable one: Block ads. This is Google's problem to deal with.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#115

Post by roenxi »

ffsm8 wrote: post #111
roenxi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Literally the the first paragraph

That is two sentences, but his post has a few more and those two don't say quite what you're interpreting them as. He didn't say that he expected YouTube to host all his content for $100/month. There are two separate ideas - one presenting credentials and the other was saying that he'd be happy to pay for hosting if he could avoid ads - but not that he'd expect to be hosting thousands of hours at YouTube quality for $100/month.

He didn't actually say or imply what you think he did. In fact a later part of the comment ("10/month? That's 30 videos in HD max. $100? 300 videos in 4K... etc. ... or whatever.") clarifies that he meant what he wrote and it is something quite different to what you're picking out.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#116

Post by Unai »

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…

I think it's ridiculous to try to paint Google as a little fruit stand asking to "please pay me". Google has more money than god. They are an awful abusive company, and they do break all social contracts and abuse every loophole they can get away with.

If you're trying to use morality to defend your argument, then yeah, we just have different values. If Google wants to give me something for free and then, as you said, put a sign asking to please give them my money, I'm sorry, but I don't make donations to trillion dollars companies.

But again, I don't think any of that really matters. As I said, they are using the open web, they're free to stop anytime they want, but not to change the rules the web is based on.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#117

Post by ffsm8 »

roenxi wrote: post #115
ffsm8 wrote: post #111

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. Literally the the first paragraph

That is two sentences, but his post has a few more and those two don't say quite what you're interpreting them as. He didn't say that he expected YouTube to host all his content for $100/month. There are two separate ideas - one presenting credentials and the other was saying that he'd be happy to pay for hosting if he could avoid ads - but not that he'd expect to be hosting thousands of hours at YouTube quality for…

Okay, let's go with that. It's still very few views just for egress, as mentioned: with a 15min video that's something like 400 views on one video.

My point from the beginning was that $100/month is not enough to host a successful channel on YouTube. You absolutely can do it on vimeo, self hosted jellyfin or similar. Plenty of options around. It just get extremely expensive if you're serving content to hundreds of thousands or even millions of viewers.

You can probably start at $10/month with a hetzner shared instance and 1tb storage and unmetered 1 Gigabit Ethernet. Gonna be fine for ~2 simultaneous viewers

I only addressed the storage first because his idea was so far outside of a realistic price. Storage cost is a rounding error on the invoice if you're serving videos to consumers with views as a semi successful YouTube channel gets

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#119

Post by bauruine »

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…

You can get 4x22TB (60TB with RAID5) for ~120$ so for less than 250$ you get the storage with geo redundancy.

https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/sx65/

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#120

Post by fsckboy »

c22 wrote: post #17
fsckboy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this culture of expecting Google to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly it's not ugly at all: parasites deserve their place in the ecosystem right alongside carnivores. What I don't like is people like this who broadcast and evangelize as if google will allow it to keep happening. I'd rather it survived longer hiding under the radar. "hey everybody I discovered…

That definitely seems like the least ethical response to finding a free donut loophole? Unless it's not a loophole at all, but just a marketing tactic deployed by the coffeemaker.

you are responding to a comment that started by justifying parasitism. To make an effective counter argument along the lines you've chosen, you need to address that part of the comment and explain why parasites in nature don't "deserve" to exist, or at least show that they are also unethical. That is/ought to be something easy to prove, right?
Post reply on HN