I agree that YouTube is Google monopoly, but I I’ve been wondering… They handle massive amounts of data. Would any other non-trillion dollar company be even capable of storing, processing, and presenting videos on the same scale, with the same quality, and with what is arguably very good latency world wide?
What could competitors do to beat Google without hemorrhaging their money just trying the manage the overhead?
My opinion is content creators could host their own content and then links to these could be aggregated on sites like lemmy/reddit/twitter/etc for the purpose of discovery. This way one site doesn’t get to control the narrative by manipulating what videos people see and creators can monetize their content however they like.
My opinion is content creators could host their own content and then links to these could be aggregated on sites like lemmy/reddit/twitter/etc for the purpose of discovery. This way one site doesn’t get to control the narrative by manipulating what videos people see and creators can monetize their content however they like.
People are free to do this. It turns out hosting video content is expensive. Most YouTubers aren’t exactly rolling in cash. The ones everyone knows, sure, they’re making a living from it now. But that also wouldn’t have been possible for most of them starting out.
Like it or not, YouTube provides something important to the internet: a place for content creators to get started with comparatively little upfront cost.
If they use the same monetization no probably not, other platforms that do work like that (like Odysee) have some limits, for example Odysee doesn’t transcode the videos and has a limit of 16mbits and 15gb total. It may be possible for platforms like Vimeo or Nebula as they have a relatively high subscriber count compared to their size and accordingly more money available per person, or something like peertube (or general torrent based) could work if the workload is split between instances and users, but peertube has no monetization so it’s problematic to maintain
I agree that YouTube is Google monopoly, but I I’ve been wondering… They handle massive amounts of data. Would any other non-trillion dollar company be even capable of storing, processing, and presenting videos on the same scale, with the same quality, and with what is arguably very good latency world wide?
What could competitors do to beat Google without hemorrhaging their money just trying the manage the overhead?
They don’t need all of the data that’s on Youtube. The vast majority of it is crap.
That’s not answering my question. Crap or not, it is an important consideration.
My opinion is content creators could host their own content and then links to these could be aggregated on sites like lemmy/reddit/twitter/etc for the purpose of discovery. This way one site doesn’t get to control the narrative by manipulating what videos people see and creators can monetize their content however they like.
People are free to do this. It turns out hosting video content is expensive. Most YouTubers aren’t exactly rolling in cash. The ones everyone knows, sure, they’re making a living from it now. But that also wouldn’t have been possible for most of them starting out.
Like it or not, YouTube provides something important to the internet: a place for content creators to get started with comparatively little upfront cost.
If they use the same monetization no probably not, other platforms that do work like that (like Odysee) have some limits, for example Odysee doesn’t transcode the videos and has a limit of 16mbits and 15gb total. It may be possible for platforms like Vimeo or Nebula as they have a relatively high subscriber count compared to their size and accordingly more money available per person, or something like peertube (or general torrent based) could work if the workload is split between instances and users, but peertube has no monetization so it’s problematic to maintain