Live data from Hacker News

Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

diode.zone

201–210 of 307 posts

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#201

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…

Hobby? Not everybody does anything for making money.

For exmaple Wikipedia, thausands of people write articles, for free, they got no money. Huge amount of open source developers publishing their work for everybody, free.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

According to the video you linked, AdSense and in-video ads are basically tied for income (26 and 27% respectively). Both of those are significant sources of income!

In the video I linked, "Sponsored projects" is a type of in-video ads, where they build a particular PC and the video is sponsored by a hardware company, so the total for all types of in-video ads is 41% vs 26% from AdSense.

For smaller Youtubers (LTT is a very large channel) the gap between AdSense and in-video tends to be wider. I don't have hard data on this but it's the result of talking to several youtubers in person. If someone has the data, it would be cool to share it here.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't ignore the fact that ads also pay for video hosting resources which, for some reason, your source completely ignored.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#204
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s a bad idea because I don’t want people to think watching video on a computer is okay. Video (movies) should be enjoyed on a big screen with a good screen. These platforms should give creators a way to prohibit viewing on small screens, Linux, etc.

Is this satire?

sounds like my film prof at uni

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People expecting content for free is the Original Sin. Advertisers are just a side effect of peoples unwillingness to pay for their content.

There is a reason why these Youtube channels don't just roll their own platform: their content is not worth money. Same reason why no one pays for your blog. It is just not worth any amount of money.

There are many Youtubers whose content I like, but if I had to pay monthly fee (or pay per view) for their videos I wouldn't watch them. I think this was pretty much confirmed with the Youtube Red experiment. Many of the channels I follow got picked up for the program, but I have no desire to pay for the shows they produced for Youtube.

And how the ads work on Youtube makes it completely unwatchable without AdBlocking and I am not paying for the Youtube Premium to remove ads because A) it won't remove the ads and sponsorships that are embedded in the videos and B) I don't want to give Youtube as a platform any cut.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#206

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.

IIRC, both Windows Updates as well as Steam use delivery systems that are very similar to torrents.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#207

The channel in this post has 20 YouTube subscribers and no more than a couple thousand total YouTube views. The trending page on PeerTube shows a list of videos with at most a few dozen views. Is PeerTube supremely unpopular (seems to have been launched several years ago: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube), or am I missing something? Does it really have an order of magnitude more Github stars ( https://github.com/Chocob…

> The channel in this post has 20 YouTube subscribers and no more than a couple thousand total YouTube views. ...that's quite a lot even on YouTube, no? I always assumed the videos recommended for their sheer popularity were a "top 1%" sort of situation.

Well, if you're comparing against all YouTube users, or even all YouTube users who have ever uploaded a video, then yes, it's a lot. On the other hand, compared to most content being viewed on YouTube, it's not even tiny, it's minuscule. There are many niche hobbyist communities or individual hobbyist singers getting much more than that. 20 subscribers basically means that not even your friends and family are looking at your channel.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#208

The channel in this post has 20 YouTube subscribers and no more than a couple thousand total YouTube views. The trending page on PeerTube shows a list of videos with at most a few dozen views. Is PeerTube supremely unpopular (seems to have been launched several years ago: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube), or am I missing something? Does it really have an order of magnitude more Github stars ( https://github.com/Chocob…

> The channel in this post has 20 YouTube subscribers and no more than a couple thousand total YouTube views. ...that's quite a lot even on YouTube, no? I always assumed the videos recommended for their sheer popularity were a "top 1%" sort of situation.

Back in high school I had a "gaming channel" where I posted just random clips of my friends and I. The subscriber count peaked around 350. No idea how many views were in total. But I removed the channel years ago.

So I'm guessing as long as you post regularly you can get thousands of subscribers without much effort.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#209

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. 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 te…

Well. Wikipedia did.

Wikipedia is not distributed, anonymous, or censor-proof.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#210

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. 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 te…

> From a purely-technical lens, that may not seem like a fatal flaw. When viewed through a whole-product lens, it is.

YouTube is an advertising business, Peertube is software. They are like day and night different.

Peertube is developed by a community of developers, governed by a french non-profit called Framasoft. Their primary mission is community governance, establishing a legal footprint, and promoting Peertube, in the same vain as Mozilla, the Drupal Foundation and many others.

According to the Peertube website, 90% of Framasoft's funding consists of donations. Since they don't sell a service, don't have to maintain infrastructure to enable hosting of videos, they don't require a complex organization and large investments.

Sharing the costs of a common good tends to work out on a small scale, and it's a valid alternative to private for-profit initiatives. Reeading tip: ERS's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

> 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.

Peertube isn't a single service that contains a "certain class of content that repels advertisers". It's software that allows anyone to set up their own server and hook it up in a federated network of servers.

It's a bit like online fora. Like, PHPbb and vBulletin are just sofware. Anyone can download a copy, install it on their own server, run their own forum and develop their own community. It used to be that there were fora about anything and everything ranging from gaming, knitting, books, history to the less savory topics and themes. Few would argue that these weren't successful in their heyday.

The biggest challenge federated networks face is this: discovery of content. That's what defines how much they will appeal to a large audience.

Centralized services like YouTube are popular because they've perfected the discovery of information relevant to their audience to a fine art. YouTube becoming an ad business is a paradox: they arrived at that point because that's the only viable business model to cover the cost of centralized hosting of billions of videos, and the bandwidth required to serve billions of viewers.

Federated networks don't suffer that problem because the costs of hosting content are shared across the nodes of the network. Peertube leverages WebTorrent as their file sharing protocol. The existence of individual nodes across the network is predicated by local economic conditions. Some nodes may disappear if they can't recoup their own operational costs. But distributed character of the network implies that its enduring success is predicated by the longevity of a majority of nodes.

Post reply on HN