• dog@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    oh look, another web service who wants to strangle its users for money and ad views :D when’s a peertube instance going to get some big creators on it supported by viewers? that’ll do it, i bet

    • poop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems unlikely that a creator would jump ship from a platform that pays them to a platform that doesn’t. That being said, lots of creators also constantly complain about demonetization, so maybe they’ll start to get fed up and move to purely in-video sponsorship things. Seems most likely from a creator that’s already on a platform like nebula

      • SmugBedBug@lemmy.iswhereits.at
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most big youtubers have in-video ads now anyways. I’m not sure what the ratio of their revenue comes from youtube ads vs in-video ads, but youtube seems pretty trigger happy about demonetizing videos. Sometimes entire channels. If someone gets the majority of their revenue from other sources than youtube ads, I could see them migrating to something like peertube.

        • Wintermute@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even with in-video ads, those must be paid based on historical (or actual?) view counts right? No matter how big you are, there’s no way you’re going to maintain view counts when switching away from YouTube.

          • poop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re allowed to upload the same .mp4 file to multiple websites. There’s absolutely no reason why a creator that isn’t getting YouTube ad money couldn’t upload to YouTube and PeerTube at the same time. Presumably if they’re getting YouTube monetization, they have some kind of exclusivity agreement.

      • dog@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        you’re definitely right on most points. but, to your point, if a creator was on a federated instance of peertube then they don’t have to worry about the wishy-washy, everchanging rules of youtube :3

        • poop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          if it’s not free what’s the benefit of using PeerTube? You’re basically describing nebula

    • withersailor@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately most people post to YouTube. They might not know about Peertube. So Peertube just doesn’t have the content.

          • notfromhere@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            From the documentation:

            A PeerTube instance can mirror other PeerTube videos to improve bandwidth use.

            The instance administrator can choose between multiple redundancy strategies (cache trending videos or recently uploaded videos etc.), set their maximum size and the minimum duplication lifetime. Then, they choose the instances they want to cache in Manage follows -> Following admin table.

            Videos are kept in the cache for at least min_lifetime, and then evicted when the cache is full.

    • Osayidan@social.vmdk.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hopefully once the issue of the ridiculous amount of resources needed for such a service is resolved. This is why we don’t have any viable youtube alternative yet, especially one that isn’t a corporate pile of junk. Once you get to a certain size if you don’t rake in the cash you shut down. So hopefully peer to peer saves the day.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        yup, even youtube isn’t profitable. Video remains one of the largest sinks of resources. A 4K movie is stored on a disc of about 66GB, so about 30GB per hour of 4k video. Even with peertube it’d take the best hobbyists to run even a modest server for a few streamers. We’re talking people with PB level of storage capacities now with fiber lines to their house to truly host peertube alternatives, and if we’re talking cloud we’re talking thousands per month.

        It’s not impossible, I don’t want to get people down, but that’s the major hurdle

        • AK1@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every video maker should host his own peertube instance with only 1 user.

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            yeah but then we get a youtube esque site of nerds who love hoarding hard drives and setting up selfhosted services. Which is great, I did that, but the vast majority of youtubers don’t have the knowledge/don’t want to set that up

        • Xuerian@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which makes me wonder - was the push for 60fps across the platform a move to make competition harder?

          I’m not aware of anyone that was using it as a leg up on them.

      • dog@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        hopefully 💙 video codecs have gotten pretty good, and maybe they’ll get even better to where, like you’re saying, we don’t have to shovel so many resources into hosting something like a peertube. crossing fingers 🤞

    • tj111@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I subscribe to nebula for this reason, directly support creators and it’s very reasonably priced.

      • pbkoden@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve found Nebula to be great for a few creators I follow, but the amount of content isn’t high enough to wean me off of YouTube completely.

      • mustyOrange@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did they ever get around to implementing playlists and autoplay of some sort? I really wanted to get into that service, but the absence of those two things just killed it for me

    • Marud@lemmy.marud.fr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Peertube will unfortunately never be an answer because of the lack of way for creators to get paid for watchtime

    • SmugBedBug@lemmy.iswhereits.at
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is peertube in terms of hosting costs? I would assume much higher than lemmy or mastodon considering it’s all video content.

      • dog@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        hosting cost for peertube would probably be astronomical since you’re likely hosting the videos yourself :/ unless there is some sort of federation that kind of works like bittorrent. that would be awesome

        • patatahooligan@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Peertube is federated. It seems to work similarly to Lemmy. I went on a random instance and clicked “discover” and noticed that I see videos from other instances. So at least the hosting cost is distributed across instances.

          The other issue then is the bandwidth. Peertube uses p2p among viewers, so if there are many viewers at the same time they can take a significant load off from the server. Instances can also cache each other’s videos to split the bandwidth cost between them.

          I think these design decisions means that it is possibly viable, though it is definitely way more expensive than non-video federated communities.

    • loops@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve had good experiences with Odysee. Not as much content yet, and it’s missing DIY videos, but I don’t see problems yet.

      • Marud@lemmy.marud.fr
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Odysee lacks of moderation. It’s full of conspiration bullshit, racist videos and horrible stuff.

        • loops@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve definitely seen the conspiracy videos, but I haven’t seen racist crap; not they’d really advertise their racism I suppose. Sucks to hear that.

    • wade@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m confused about this take. YouTube clearly has hosting costs and also pays creators. That money has to come from somewhere. They offer two options, ads or subscription. You could argue that the number of ads is too many or the cost of the subscription is too high, but demanding a service be free just because it’s technologically possible to block ads seems weird.