3 ms·

> [popcorn time] proves that it can be more reliable and easier I don't think this is true... My friend used popcorn time and I can tell you that it is not ea

by hudon 9y ago

> [popcorn time] proves that it can be more reliable and easier I don't think this is true... My friend used popcorn time and I can tell you that it is not easier or more reliable. The movie comes in somewhat random chunks so most of the time you are stuck having to download a large portion of the movie before being able to view it. The content discovery is lacking too. You have to rely on people hosting old movies and most of the time only blockbusters or recent movies are available. If you do get lucky on more obscure films, downloading it becomes an issue because of lack of seeders, and seeders come and go. It is close to Netflix quality, but still not quite, which moreso is evidence for my "will always be at least as costly" point. Pick a not-super-recent and average-popularity film, say V for Vendetta, and see how Netflix and Popcorn Time compare. You can also think about the tech: one ensures it's hosting high quality content on reliable servers that have the highest possible connectivity to its users. The other relies on users' good-will and connectivity, and both of those come and go.

SnotJockey 9y ago
A lot of the issues you raise with popcorntime come down to not enough users and not enough seeders, and those problems are caused largely because people are scared of the legal repercussions. So it's an artificial limitations to the service's success not technical ones.
- hudon 9y ago
  OK let's go with that hypothesis and say you do have enough seeders and there are no legal repercussions for seeding. Let's be even more generous and say the protocol incentivizes seeding with Bitcoin. If you take all the seeders' content and put it in well connected data centers that have high bandwidth connections to ISPs, would you not at the very least provide faster streaming? Why would users choose the slower 1000-seeders network over the 10-high-bandwidth-data-centers network?
  - smileysteve 9y ago
    > Why would users choose the slower 1000-seeders network over the 10-high-bandwidth-data-centers network? Because Level3's peering agreements with Verizon/Comcast are under negotiation and the 10 high bandwidth data center owners don't want to set a precedent of paying more for a pipe because the end users want it (and are paying both services already), so the streams get throttled. But with a decentralized world, maybe it's harder to track a bunch of small packets that never leave the Verizon/Comcast network. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/21/5922793/verizon-level-3-netflix-peering-transit-congestion https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/21/5922793/verizon-level-3-n...
    - hudon 9y ago
      The post I was replying to was talking about us discussing technical limitations, not artificial ones. Whether or not ISPs throttle streaming is an artificial limitation. You're right that the decentralized solution would have censorship resistance so would be free of this limitation. This is the biggest (only?) value in decentralizing a system. However, it still would be less performant than its centralized alternative if you remove the artificial limits.
      - Matt3o12_ 9y ago
        Another advantage is that the costs would be lower for the streaming provider, which could mean that the costs for the user are lower (although it should only be marginal for services such as Netflix). Furthermore the speed could be higher because the data often doesn't need to travel far and I don't have to worry about if my ISP has good private peering. While those limitations could be considered artifical, it is much easier to prevent them by having a distributed network and thus not be bound by a few agreements and have hundreds of thousands alternative routes, some which might be ultra fast because they are your neighbor.

by hudon 9y ago

SnotJockey 9y ago

A lot of the issues you raise with popcorntime come down to not enough users and not enough seeders, and those problems are caused largely because people are scared of the legal repercussions. So it's an artificial limitations to the service's success not technical ones.

hudon 9y ago
OK let's go with that hypothesis and say you do have enough seeders and there are no legal repercussions for seeding. Let's be even more generous and say the protocol incentivizes seeding with Bitcoin. If you take all the seeders' content and put it in well connected data centers that have high bandwidth connections to ISPs, would you not at the very least provide faster streaming? Why would users choose the slower 1000-seeders network over the 10-high-bandwidth-data-centers network?
- smileysteve 9y ago
  > Why would users choose the slower 1000-seeders network over the 10-high-bandwidth-data-centers network? Because Level3's peering agreements with Verizon/Comcast are under negotiation and the 10 high bandwidth data center owners don't want to set a precedent of paying more for a pipe because the end users want it (and are paying both services already), so the streams get throttled. But with a decentralized world, maybe it's harder to track a bunch of small packets that never leave the Verizon/Comcast network. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/21/5922793/verizon-level-3-netflix-peering-transit-congestion https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/21/5922793/verizon-level-3-n...
  - hudon 9y ago
    The post I was replying to was talking about us discussing technical limitations, not artificial ones. Whether or not ISPs throttle streaming is an artificial limitation. You're right that the decentralized solution would have censorship resistance so would be free of this limitation. This is the biggest (only?) value in decentralizing a system. However, it still would be less performant than its centralized alternative if you remove the artificial limits.
    - Matt3o12_ 9y ago
      Another advantage is that the costs would be lower for the streaming provider, which could mean that the costs for the user are lower (although it should only be marginal for services such as Netflix). Furthermore the speed could be higher because the data often doesn't need to travel far and I don't have to worry about if my ISP has good private peering. While those limitations could be considered artifical, it is much easier to prevent them by having a distributed network and thus not be bound by a few agreements and have hundreds of thousands alternative routes, some which might be ultra fast because they are your neighbor.