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

Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

diode.zone

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 307 posts

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#141

Post by phone8675309 »

tomxor wrote: post #112
zelphirkalt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. If we want good content und independence from YouTube, perhaps it is time to see, that it might cost us a tiny bit of money each month, to uphold our freedom. One rented server can easily support many users, each of those can chip in to finance renting the server. It can be done trans…

> That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. This is the answer to so much of what's wrong with the modern web. We need less business and to get more communities back into the center of the web... it should be even easier today since IaaS is so much cheaper, I think it's just a focus problem, nothing is relevant to the big sit…

Opening the Net to commerce was digital original sin

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#142

Post by M2Ys4U »

Popegaf wrote: post #69
Animats wrote: post #44

PeerTube does not have enough bandwidth to work. Try PeerTube. Here's a cat video. Posted 1 week ago, 38 views, duration 10 seconds. https://peertube.tv/w/tsvCimhEaLSTZD16B3gqBQ Even as the only watcher, and with gigabit Internet both ways at my end, it stuttered, then stalled completely. For short videos, you'd be better off putting them on a shared hosting site as .mp4 files. Peer to peer video hosting is just not…

It's not P2P, it's federated. Anybody can host an instance and probably that one has low bandwidth and isn't mirrored by other instances. Instances like https://tilvids.com/ or https://video.ploud.fr/ have better bandwidth.

>It's not P2P, it's federated.

It's both. PeerTube instances federate with each other, but the video player uses P2P to spread the load between viewers.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#143

Post by CharlesW »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #85
Barrin92 wrote: post #72

I don't understand the economics of this at all. Video distribution is bandwidth heavy. If you're running your own peer tube instance the server costs are surely going to outstrip any revenue you make from it. if users have to carry that load and seed your stuff they'll have to waste their own storage. What is the incentive for anyone to do this? Exacerbated by the fact that the entire thing mostly seems to attract p…

That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. If we want good content und independence from YouTube, perhaps it is time to see, that it might cost us a tiny bit of money each month, to uphold our freedom. One rented server can easily support many users, each of those can chip in to finance renting the server. It can be done trans…

> That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model.

From a purely-technical lens, that may not seem like a fatal flaw. When viewed through a whole-product lens, it is. PeerTube's anonymous, censor-proof nature is enough to attract a certain class of content that repels advertisers, but then what? Until the dark side of distributed technologies is addressed instead of touted as a feature, this doesn't have a chance of popular success.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#144

Post by notatoad »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #85
Barrin92 wrote: post #72

I don't understand the economics of this at all. Video distribution is bandwidth heavy. If you're running your own peer tube instance the server costs are surely going to outstrip any revenue you make from it. if users have to carry that load and seed your stuff they'll have to waste their own storage. What is the incentive for anyone to do this? Exacerbated by the fact that the entire thing mostly seems to attract p…

That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. If we want good content und independence from YouTube, perhaps it is time to see, that it might cost us a tiny bit of money each month, to uphold our freedom. One rented server can easily support many users, each of those can chip in to finance renting the server. It can be done trans…

>perhaps it is time to see, that it might cost us a tiny bit of money each month

that's still "generating revenue". maybe not profit, but servers and bandwidth cost non-trivial amounts of money and somebody has to pay for that. whether it's donations, or user-fees, or ads, or private benefactors, the revenue has to come from somewhere. but if a video service has no answer as to how it can sustain itself, it's questionable whether it's worth the effort of developing it or developing your audience on it.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#145

Post by ogsalman »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #85
Barrin92 wrote: post #72

I don't understand the economics of this at all. Video distribution is bandwidth heavy. If you're running your own peer tube instance the server costs are surely going to outstrip any revenue you make from it. if users have to carry that load and seed your stuff they'll have to waste their own storage. What is the incentive for anyone to do this? Exacerbated by the fact that the entire thing mostly seems to attract p…

That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. If we want good content und independence from YouTube, perhaps it is time to see, that it might cost us a tiny bit of money each month, to uphold our freedom. One rented server can easily support many users, each of those can chip in to finance renting the server. It can be done trans…

i absolutely love this answer, and we need more people who think like this. props to you friend. much love, and much support. lets spread awareness to these poisoned minds.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#146

Post by jjk166 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #72

I don't understand the economics of this at all. Video distribution is bandwidth heavy. If you're running your own peer tube instance the server costs are surely going to outstrip any revenue you make from it. if users have to carry that load and seed your stuff they'll have to waste their own storage. What is the incentive for anyone to do this? Exacerbated by the fact that the entire thing mostly seems to attract p…

The fact is most videos are unpopular, so they don't have a very high bandwidth requirement. Those that do have a high bandwidth requirement are the popular videos that will be seeded by more nodes in the network. Typically this popularity is brief, so as the popularity fades, nodes can switch to hosting other content without a dramatic uptick in bandwidth usage for other nodes. The system works as long as users typically seed approximately the same amount as they leech.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#147

Post by mastazi »

cirenehc wrote: post #96
pacifist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want advertisers? Advertisers are part of the problem.

A significant portion of content creators do it as a full time job. Ads is a stable revenue stream for these content creators. You as a consumer are free to move to any decentralized video platform you like, but the main bottleneck for any significant shift in market share depends on content creators, and ultimately, on advertisers.

> Ads is a stable revenue stream for these content creators.

Ads are a revenue stream mostly for the platform e.g. YouTube itself. You can have a look at this[1] or any other "how my YouTube channel makes money" video to see that's the case.

In-video ads, on the other hand, are indeed a significant revenue stream for creators, but those have nothing to do with the platform and everything to do with the single creator.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zt57TWkTF4

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#148

Post by sumedh »

Popegaf wrote: post #69
Animats wrote: post #44

PeerTube does not have enough bandwidth to work. Try PeerTube. Here's a cat video. Posted 1 week ago, 38 views, duration 10 seconds. https://peertube.tv/w/tsvCimhEaLSTZD16B3gqBQ Even as the only watcher, and with gigabit Internet both ways at my end, it stuttered, then stalled completely. For short videos, you'd be better off putting them on a shared hosting site as .mp4 files. Peer to peer video hosting is just not…

It's not P2P, it's federated. Anybody can host an instance and probably that one has low bandwidth and isn't mirrored by other instances. Instances like https://tilvids.com/ or https://video.ploud.fr/ have better bandwidth.

https://tilvids.com/ has some buffering but was much better compared to other links in this page. I guess the other sites dont have lot of peers in Australia.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#149

Post by kragen »

Barrin92 wrote: post #82
throwuxiytayq wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, torrents are still a thing.

because people want to download illegal movies and porn, or host linux isos as a service for the commons. There's practically no commercial activity around torrents because it's an incredibly inefficient way to serve large amounts of data.

You may not be aware of this, but like everything on PeerTube, the video we are commenting on here is in fact served up via BitTorrent. I got about a third of it from the diode.zone seed, which, if I understand correctly, is paid for out of Micah Scott's Patreon.

The inefficiency of torrents on near-symmetric internet connections is pretty minor. If a 1GiB movie is on Netflix, each user has to download 1GiB of data over your internet connection. If it's in a torrent, each user has to download 1GiB of data and also upload 1GiB of data. The efficiency difference is only a factor of 2. And the 1GiB of upload bandwidth was, in many cases, idle anyway.

(Well, there's also the fact that the users are paying the cost of distributing the movie, rather than Netflix paying part of it. So you'd think that information that benefits the people who receive it, like Linux, porn, and sewing and soapmaking tutorials, rather than the people who produce it, like advertising, would tend to be distributed by torrents. But, for a commercial setup, this is a minor consideration; even ordinary hosted servers pay relatively little for bandwidth, and Netflix probably pays nothing in most cases. I suspect Micah Scott ended up paying about 10% of the cost of me watching this video, not counting the value of my time.)

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#150

Post by phkahler »

Barrin92 wrote: post #72

I don't understand the economics of this at all. Video distribution is bandwidth heavy. If you're running your own peer tube instance the server costs are surely going to outstrip any revenue you make from it. if users have to carry that load and seed your stuff they'll have to waste their own storage. What is the incentive for anyone to do this? Exacerbated by the fact that the entire thing mostly seems to attract p…

If distribution is done like bit torrent then the users pay for it - the cost is then distributed and very low.

There needs to be some kind of peer to peer rating system so you can find content suited to you (reinforce your bubble I suppose) because there is going to be no central filtering authority, but that's part of the point.

Post reply on HN