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

Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

ymcinema.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 317 posts

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#201

Post by BbzzbB »

judge2020 wrote: post #10

This is a response to the Patreon story from last week[0]. The thing with Vimeo charging that much for videos is that it doesn’t look like they actually needed Vimeo. Ya, it’s nice to have rich analytics, but it sounded like they would have been just fine simply distributing the MP4 to subscribers via some file transfer service, eg. WeTransfer. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30686704

Unlisted YouTube video or Patreon's native video sharing both sound more appealing than some direct download.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#202

Post by 999900000999 »

foepys wrote: post #62
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3500 a year is significantly less than hiring someone to do it for you.

Let's not kid ourselves that this requires a full-time position. I bet you can hire some agency to do this for you for a few hundred bucks.

Once you get done with the consulting fees and follow up work, 3500$ a year isn't bad.

Vimeo isn't doing this to be mean.

If it was easy to do it an affordable manner, I'm a sure one of us techies could whip it up ( a Video hosting service )in about a week or two, but I strongly suspect you'd end up losing money.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#203

Post by smileybarry »

jahewson wrote: post #183
smileybarry wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's CloudFront, one of the most expensive CDNs out there. (And that's before considering customers like Vimeo can get special rates, even 50% off is common) Another example on the opposite end is a host like Hetzner, where you get 20TB of traffic at 10Gb/s uplink for any cloud VM at $5+/month (or any root server at $40+/month). Comparably, AWS EC2 is $0.17/GB IIRC. On another note -- it looks like Vimeo are us…

It’s not fair to compare premium cloud providers with dollar store providers like Hetzner. Especially if you’re going to ignore the cost of paying someone to set up and maintain that infrastructure, which is easily more than $3500/yr.

I didn't think it was fair to use CloudFront as the only example for CDN pricing, when it's one of the more expensive ones. Granted, I used an extreme counter-example but the point was that implying "this customer costs them $80-$120/month" is misleading (and wrong).

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#204

Post by sofixa »

giantrobot wrote: post #189
pavlov wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple’s App Store charges much more than that for a service that includes only very basic hosting of an application package.

> includes only very basic hosting of an application package Only basic hosting if you ignore all of the other services. You might consider the App Store's revenue share high but don't pretend the App Store is just a dumb file host.

What else do they do besides provide a payments gateway ( that they force you to use)? As seen with Android, you don't need to use the official app store to use the official SDKs and platform APIs.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#205

Post by chockchocschoir »

technobabbler wrote: post #200
chockchocschoir wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems you are the one who doesn't have any idea about how much "bandwidth" really costs, which is $0. When peering happens, do you think they put quota on how much bandwidth you can send through? No, you have a throughput limit but then after that its unmetered. No way Vimeo is paying per TB served if they hope to one day make profits (unless they already do so). You can easily setup your own personal video hosting s…

Where can you get a gigabit host that serves many TB a month for $100? Not being sarcastic, genuinely interested in such a service.

Easy, search for "unmetered dedicated server", bunch of offers all over the place. Many hosters also have "server auctions" where you can rent second-hand servers that are already setup but the one who initially ordered it stopped using it, those are also cheap.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#206

Post by matt-attack »

com2kid wrote: post #163
somebodythere wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single provider deciding to charge you 16% of your revenue is kind of unusual.

Consumer electronics. Make a device for $5, it'll sell on store shelves for $30, you may get $3-$5 of that. Everyone is super spoiled by the finances behind digital distribution methods.

Try running an IHOP or the like. You’ll be keeping a dollar or two on that $15 entree.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#207

Post by smileybarry »

ugjka wrote: post #186
smileybarry wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's CloudFront, one of the most expensive CDNs out there. (And that's before considering customers like Vimeo can get special rates, even 50% off is common) Another example on the opposite end is a host like Hetzner, where you get 20TB of traffic at 10Gb/s uplink for any cloud VM at $5+/month (or any root server at $40+/month). Comparably, AWS EC2 is $0.17/GB IIRC. On another note -- it looks like Vimeo are us…

You can't compare Hetzner boxes with CDNs. Imagine someone trying to stream a 4K video from your Hetzner box in Finland to Australia. Not the same as directly from local CDN node

Not the same, but I wanted to present the counter-point that bandwidth in general is not as expensive as AWS and such make it out to be. Hetzner is an extreme counter-example but I thought that just using CloudFront's pricing in this thread is misleading as well.

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#208

Post by technobabbler »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #199
gruez wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not even like the early days of Gmail abuse where people were using it as a cheap web disk, consuming way more storage and bandwidth than Gmail could've reasonably estimated Was this actually a thing? AFAIK even at the start they had hard limits. The only thing "unlimited" about it was that they promised to steadily increase the storage cap.

Right. They announced with a 1GB limit. At the time, this felt unlimited. The competition was offering around 5-10MB.

Yeah, I apologize if I was unclear. Didn't mean to imply that Gmail was unlimited, only that it was in a similar situation (i.e. offering way more disk than most users needed, with the bet that 99% of them won't use anywhere near the limit).

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#209

Post by hannasanarion »

hitovst wrote: post #65

Considering the practices of Youtube, Vimeo, and the like, I don't understand why bittorrent feeds aren't used more often.

Yeah, it's almost like people who make things for a living want to be paid for things they make or something. Don't they know that I deserve everything for free because I know how to apt-get transmission?

Re: Vimeo: “We are a B2B solution, not the indie version of YouTube.”

#210

Post by chockchocschoir »

vlovich123 wrote: post #197
chockchocschoir wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems you are the one who doesn't have any idea about how much "bandwidth" really costs, which is $0. When peering happens, do you think they put quota on how much bandwidth you can send through? No, you have a throughput limit but then after that its unmetered. No way Vimeo is paying per TB served if they hope to one day make profits (unless they already do so). You can easily setup your own personal video hosting s…

You’re generally correct although it’s slightly more nuanced. There are places in the world where peering isn’t free (eg Australia) and even mandated by law not to be (Eg SK).

I'm not saying the peering itself is free (it depends wildly, peering conditions/agreements are setup on a case-by-case basis often), but the amount of TB/month you include in the peering is not something I've seen before.

Could you share what law mandates that traffic has to be priced by amount send in a time interval in peering agreements? Or is this just a misunderstanding?

Post reply on HN