• chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    30 days ago

    Good luck getting that through the system… the cost to run something like YouTube is… well, let’s just say the lack of real competitions speaks volumes.

    • emptyother@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      30 days ago

      The biggest drain is the copyright fights, I’m guessing. Defending against and pleasing every big company with an interest.

      • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        That’s a drop in the pond in the grand scheme of things. You just out source that out to rights management companies and absolve yourself from that obligation behind safe harbour. This is basically what they’re doing in this department. They’ve built Content ID for digital finger printing, and then invented an entire market for rights management companies on both sides of the equation.

        On the other hand, 500 hours of video footage got uploaded to YouTube every minute per YouTube in 2022 (pdf warning). 30 minutes of video game content (compresses better), just the 720p variant using avc1 codec is about 443MB of space. Never mind all the other transcodes or higher bitrates. So say 800MB per hour of 720p content; 500 hours of content per minute means 400GB of disk space requirement, per minute; 500TB of disk space per day.

        That’s just video uploaded to YouTube. I don’t even know how much is being watched regularly, but even if we assume at least one view per video, that’s 500TB of bandwidth in and then 500TB of bandwidth out per day.

        Good luck scaling that on public budget.

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          29 days ago

          Extrapolating from this, we can say that Youtube hosts around 2.5 to 3 exabytes (2.5 to 3 million terabytes) of data. Interestingly, the total volume of data on the internet is, as of the end of 2023, around 120 zettabytes, so Youtube only makes up around 0.0025% of the total volume of all that data.

        • emptyother@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          30 days ago

          Microsoft could have done it if storage was all. They got the infrastructure, the tech, cdn infrastructure , and even had a lot of big business customers already using Azures media streaming services. Instead they are withdrawing.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            29 days ago

            And the fact that Microsoft noped out says it all.

            Basically, the only orgs that have a snowball’s chance of hosting a twitch/youtube are Amazon, Google, and Microsoft on account of them also being three of the largest “cloud” providers and having the resources at cost. Amazon/Twitch are scrambling to find a way to deal with the increasing shift to sponsored streams, Google/Youtube are cracking down on adblockers, and Microsoft just gave up.

          • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            29 days ago

            I said infrastructure, not just storage. and yes there is even more involved like the user base, as we have seen with social media time and time again. Even if Microsoft built an even better YouTube (lol), it’s still very likely no one would use it. It’s a massive investment with a lot of risk.

        • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          30 days ago

          every computer gets a government-mandated tool installed that reserves 50% of your upload speed to help host YouTube. If you are caught without it, You’re going to jail.

          /s

      • helenslunch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        You say that like they even look at them. That’s clearly not the case.

        • emptyother@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          Of course they dont. Not a chance with that much video added every hour. Also everything gotta be automated. And in favor of those who can make the most legal trouble. And thats companies, not the many various smaller IP-owners.

          Just rubs me the wrong way that only Google are finding this business worth it. None of the other companies, even with massive amounts of storage and cdn infrastructure, are able to compete for long.

      • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        29 days ago

        Japan has nicovideo.jp as well. Russia has Yandex Efir (gone through a couple rebrands, Efir was the name in 2020 when we were discussing deals; it was operating under another name prior, and I think it is superseded by dzen). Off to the side I think vK also has a small video delivery presence like how Facebook has videos in their feeds. China has several platforms: Tencent Video (owned by Tencent), Youku as you’ve called out (owned by Alibaba), XiGua (ByteDance), Haokan (Baidu), and then slew of smaller ones like KuaiShou, BiliBili and that video thing WeChat tries to push. None of these are public service operated by the State, by the way. List really goes on… and I’d know, because I’ve worked in the space for almost 12 years now.

        China’s great firewall aside, all these platforms are tiny in comparison, and in the grand scheme of things, and barely have any reach. In general, these regional are all taking a backseat just like Nebula and alike — if creators’ content are hyperlocal/super niche, they might be okay with smaller regional platforms; but if they’re trying to extend their reach and monetization (to ensure they have money to continue producing content), the creators’ presence on these platforms are really just auxiliary to their primary presence on YouTube.

        Getting viewers to these smaller platforms is going to pose a significant chicken or the egg problem — creators aren’t incentivized to be there because lack of viewer, viewers aren’t incentivized to go there because lack of content. Worse yet, I’ve also seen situations where creators are paid for some period of exclusivity and then when the deal lapses they just go straight back to YouTube.

        Real competitors do not exist, and likely will not exist for the foreseeable future. YouTube is the million pound behemoth when everyone else barely registers on the radar.