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

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#131

Post by c22 »

fsckboy wrote: post #124
c22 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Responding to a comment does not imply that one disagrees with the entirety or any part of said comment and does not necessitate crafting an effective counter argument. In fact, I am not making an argument as to parasitism, parasites, or their right to exist at all . The closest thing I am making to an argument is that, as a human, if you find what you believe to be a bug in a system and you choose to exploit the bug…

> the least ethical choice you, as a human, can make you assigned me "human", but I identify as a parasite i follow the laws of logic, and if the logic of the system gives me a donut, I will take the donut. if the logic changes and i don't get a donut, i will not complain. It is not unethical to follow the logic of the system. now, as to you as a human, are you saying that you have never downloaded a youtube video to…

No, I am not saying anything like that. I think we must be talking past eachother here.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#132

Post by roenxi »

ffsm8 wrote: post #117
roenxi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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 think that is still overcooking it. Peertube has a FAQ on the subject [0], going off that it's probably achievable to have 1,000 concurrent users at ~$50/month+storage. Not commercially advisable, it is pretty obvious that everyone in the game ends up going ad-supported and that makes sense to me. But YouTube could in support something like that for small channels without too much trouble. The issue here for the median channel case doesn't look like costs in the >$1,000/month range as much as foregone revenue and operational complexity. The vast majority of content creators don't get hundreds of thousands of views.

[0] https://joinpeertube.org/faq#should-i-have-a-big-server-to-r...

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#133

Post by twiceaday »

Unai wrote: post #116
twiceaday wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's ridiculous to frame what I said like this.

1) Answer the question. Would you ever steal physical goods from an unmanned fruit stand merely asking for money? If not, would you do it if the company owning the fruit stand was rich enough? Did enough bad things? If the fruit stand was _really_ big?

If you answer yes to any of those questions I no longer wish to talk. We truly do have different values.

2) The fruit stand is an analogy for building a business on the open web. You seem to have missed that. Do you think that the internet, that these companies, got to their importance in our lives because everyone is free to modify their packets? That is delusional. It's a quirk most people aren't even aware of, and the internet is as good as you think it is today in large part because they aren't. It's why the fruit stand keeps coming to your town and is the size that it is. It's why you spend so much time stealing from it. Framing your position as exercising inalienable internet rights is ridiculous.

3) Something else you seem to have missed is the parts where I highlight the implications of your philosophy. I'm starting to think that you are arguing in bad faith. What if everyone acted like you? You think that would lead to a better world? Specifically talk about the impact on your favorite YouTube creators. You think it's fine that you don't pay them anything for their effort? That they probably get paid a hair less when you watch their videos because you take the bandwidth without paying for it by watching ads? Why do you only mention the impact on Big Bad Google? Because its easier to launder your conscience that way?

To be clear, my stance is that blocking ads is theft but petty theft; a few cents. Getting all high and mighty about it, and especially getting _anywhere near_ sounding entitled, is ridiculous. Continue to steal a little but be humble about it.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#134

Post by ffsm8 »

movedx wrote: post #127
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…

You literally skipped the part where I said I'd be happy to be limited to a set number of videos per channel.

You also need to be happy with a limited amount of views with that scheme/ videos going private after that, because storage is literally the cheapest cost. I used that as an example how far removed you're from a realistic price estimate

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#135

Post by grugagag »

toastercat wrote: post #130
grugagag wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curios. What happens?

Google will be forced to delete unviewed content more frequently, or start charging for hosting video. The latter of which would probably help reduce the amount of garbage content on YouTube.

A lot of garbage content on youtube is exactly because of google’s offered incentive to get users to produce more content. I wouldn’t be upset if clickbait garbage gets archived away.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#136

Post by throw0101d »

movedx wrote: post #84
Panzer04 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness to Google, costs to host video would scale with viewers. Unless creators are willing to pay increasingly excessive costs as their viewerbass grows (which I doubt) some kind of per-viewer cost (like ads) needs to be charged. There's no guarantee creators can collect as much income without Google either. Google has proven they can get way more income from ads than pretty much everyone else, and even bug cha…

Then how are Vimeo doing it? They're fixed price.

> Then how are Vimeo doing it? They're fixed price.

They limit you to 2TB per month of bandwidth:

* https://vimeo.com/upgrade-plan

If a video goes viral and you shoot past that you'll probably get a call from them.

You also have a finite amount of storage space available with them, which depends on the account tier you're at: no infinite storage like with Youtube. (And with 4K video nowadays, that can be burned through quickly.)

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#137

Post by toastercat »

MBCook wrote: post #122
stavros wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Theft of services is not a reasonable alternative.

I think so long as uBlock Origin and browsers like Brave and Firefox are normalized as OK to use, this kind of entitled behavior (that people don't recognize as theft) will unfortunately continue. There needs to be a kind of shift of mentality where people recognize this stuff is harmful.

Re: Freetube is the best way to watch YouTube

#138

Post by yencabulator »

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…

Especially if you can just serve 720p instead of 1080p during the "downtime".
Post reply on HN