91–100 of 986 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know nothing about boxing and this fight was just ridiculously impressive. I kept tuning out of the earlier fights. They felt like some sort of filler. I didn’t get the allure. But Taylor v Serrano was just obvious talent that even I could appreciate it.
[flagged]
A friend and I, in separate states, found that it wouldn’t stream from TVs, Roku, etc. but would stream from mobile. And for me, using a mobile hotspot to a laptop; though that implies checking IP address range instead of just user-agent, so that seems unlikely. Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were prioritizing mobile traffic because it’s more forgiving of shitty bitrate.
I just left a bar streaming it on a smart TV and back in my home it's streaming on the Roku just fine.
I wonder if there will be any long term reputational repercussions for Netflix because of this. Amongst SWEs, Netflix is known for hiring the best people and their streaming service normally seems very solid. Other streaming services have definitely caught up a bit and are much more reliable then in the early days, but my impression still has always been that Netflix is a step above the rest technically. This sure do…
Yeah, the funny part is that Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Peacock have all demonstrated the ability to handle an event of this caliber with no issue. Netflix now may never get another opportunity like this again.
I have a feeling Netflix said 'how hard could this be?' and is finding out right now.
I wonder if there will be any long term reputational repercussions for Netflix because of this. Amongst SWEs, Netflix is known for hiring the best people and their streaming service normally seems very solid. Other streaming services have definitely caught up a bit and are much more reliable then in the early days, but my impression still has always been that Netflix is a step above the rest technically. This sure do…
So the issue is that Netflix gets its performance from colocating caches of movies in ISP datacenters, and a live broadcast doesn't work with that. It's not just about the sheer numbers of viewers, it's that a live model totally undermines their entire infrastructure advantage. See: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
I wonder if there will be any long term reputational repercussions for Netflix because of this. Amongst SWEs, Netflix is known for hiring the best people and their streaming service normally seems very solid. Other streaming services have definitely caught up a bit and are much more reliable then in the early days, but my impression still has always been that Netflix is a step above the rest technically. This sure do…
I don't think Netflix is even designed to handle very extreme multi-region live-streaming at scale as evidenced in this event with hundreds of millions simultaneously watching. YouTube, Twitch, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc have all demonstrated to stream simultaneously to hundreds of millions live without any issues. This was Netflix's chance to do this and they have largely failed at this. There are no excuses or juniors…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they have to refund the fees for a month to anyone who streamed this fight. That's the only thing that seems fair. It has been pretty useless. At the moment seems to be working only when running in non-live mode several minutes behind. So if there are 1 million trying to stream it, that means they would lose $15 million. So.. they might only give a partial refund. But people should push for an automatic refun…
Is it really that big a deal if you are watching a few minutes behind? I've watched ball games on streaming networks where I can also hear a local radio broadcast, and the stream is always delayed compared to the radio, sometimes by quite a lot. But you'd never know it if you were just watching the stream.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sting
Offshore combined streaming and betting houses will be cleaning up the rubes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, this is not Netflix’ regular cup of tea, and it’s a very different problem to solve. They can probably use their edge caches, but it’s challenging.
How YouTube does this? Netflix is like drop in the ocean when compared to.
Netflix's edge nodes are optimized for streaming already encoded videos to end users. They have to transcode some number of formats from the source and send them all to the edge nodes to flow out. It's harder to manage a ton of different streams flowing out to the edge nodes cleanly.
I would guess YouTube, being built on google's infrastructure , has powerful enough edge nodes that they stream one video stream to each edge location and the edges transcode for the clients. Only one stream from source to edge to worry about and is much simpler to support and reason about.
But that's just my wild assed guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the issue is that Netflix gets its performance from colocating caches of movies in ISP datacenters, and a live broadcast doesn't work with that. It's not just about the sheer numbers of viewers, it's that a live model totally undermines their entire infrastructure advantage. See: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
I wonder how effective it would be to cache live events with a delay. Write to the tail, read from the head.
Isn't live streaming at scale already solved problem by cable companies? I never seen ESPN going down during a critical event
I'm an engineering manager at a Fortune 500 company. The dumbest engineer on our team left for Netflix. He got a pay raise too. Our engineers are fucking morons. And this guy was the dumbest of the bunch. If you think Netflix hires top tier talent, you don't know Netflix.