• Endorkend@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    All I have left to say about Google and Youtube in particular is that Youtubes ads have become so problematic, both in amount and quality (like seriously, people get banned for using innocuous words in videos targeted at adult audiences, yet completely fucked up ads are squarely targeted at children) and at this point, it’s time for YouTube to die.

    A new platform needs to come along.

    Which will be hard since Google has such a stranglehold on the datacenter and backbone level that they have an absolute advantage when it comes to bandwidth and storage costs. Which is the main cost for video platforms like YouTube.

    • The Barto
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only thing stopping a viable replacement for YouTube is the servers, google essentially has an infinite amount of server space, you would have to match them on that, decentralization would help bare the load, but there will become a time when even those servers will need to dramatically expand their server count.

        • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I don’t think people understand quite how astronomical an undertaking it is to replace this shit. People like to quote things like AWS, but AWS is a) expensive and b) general purpose. As such, it might be able to solve the problem, but not nearly as efficiently. It would cost you proportionally WAY MORE than Google is paying to keep YT alive, so that gives you an extra giant hurdle on top of the other complexity.

          Web hosting with low latency is hard. Huge data storage is hard. Transcodinf is hard. Constant uptime is hard. Search is hard. Recommendations are hard. Making it profitable is hard. Starting an ad service that isn’t googles is hard. Convincing content creators to move there is hard. Convincing consumers to look there is hard. Sure, any of these problems have remotely comparable analogs. But you have to solve all of them simultaneously to get anywhere near competing with YouTube. And since Google owns the whole “stack”, it’s much cheaper for them then it’ll be for you.

          Kick probably makes a decent comparison here. But they’re A) solving a subset of the problem B) fighting against a company that has extremely clear problems (arguably much worse than YouTube) C) is in a tech savvy-er demographic D) is funded by mega-casinos with tons of money and a vested interest in the product E) fighting in a market with less inertia so viewers and creators can move easier F) fighting twitch instead if YT which is smaller and younger.

          And they’re still not really all that much competition.

    • Footnote2669@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think with everything that’s going on, self hosting will become kind of like a smartphone, everyone has a server. Then the creators host files, and you transcode them on your hardware