3 ms·
Sounds like they could optimise the costs by encoding two versions of the video - one without the sound that would play by default, and the other when you click
by gregorkas 10y ago
Sounds like they could optimise the costs by encoding two versions of the video - one without the sound that would play by default, and the other when you click on the actual video.
The CDN invoice probably isn't the smallest of sums you can imagine :).
- ej_campbell 10y agoThey wouldn't want a few second pause while the audio is buffered.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoThe size of the audio track is probably around 2% of the size of the whole video. I don't think they'll bother :).
- gremy0 10y ago2% of a bazillions of dollars is still like nearly a bazillion dollars.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoThey'd have to either strip audio out of the video stream on the fly, which will probably force them to use less "dumb" CDNs and incur a processing time cost (which, like most today's on-line businesses, they happily offload to their users now), or they'd have to keep two copies of the same video on their servers, which would make it cost 2x "a bazillions of dollars".
- gremy0 10y agoYou are very probably right the simple solution makes sense. It is an interesting optimization to be able to make though.
- chanux 10y agoA tidbit that I found interesting recently is that their video stream is different from the audio stream source. says a comment (by yelnatz) above