• Gestrid@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is, unlike text (like on here and Mastodon), video files can become extremely large, so you’d have to have a pretty big amount of storage to replace YouTube, federated or not.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      True, that’s mostly what their cost is. Servers and storage.

      I wonder how much YouTube depends on cloud storage right now.

      • TehWorld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        100%? Do you think that there’s some box sitting under someone’s desk hosting Youtube? Hint: They’re owned by Google.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I work in IT, I know how storage works. I just don’t know if they’re on prem hosting or primarily using a private cloud service.

          I mean they have the money, might as well offload to specialists where you can, right? I wouldn’t be building new infrastructure day and night when I could just have a B to B contract with AWS or something.

          • TehWorld@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not honestly sure if you’re trolling, but I’ll bite anyway. Youtube is owned by Google, who is one of the world’s largest cloud providers. Note that there really is no such thing as ‘off-prem’ for Google, as they have data centers all over the planet at this point. They will actually have multiple copies of the video floating at different levels of storage and different nodes around the world, all automated to tier the data as demand rises and falls.