4 ms·

For each individual video, it is a onetime CPU cost, but not a onetime bandwidth cost. For ongoing operation of the platform, at scale, you might argue that it

For each individual video, it is a onetime CPU cost, but not a onetime bandwidth cost. For ongoing operation of the platform, at scale, you might argue that it's an ongoing CPU cost as more and more videos are added constantly, but the bandwidth to distribute those videos goes up at an equal rate on average. I don't know any actual numbers, but it seems very plausible to me that a vast increase in CPU cost for a minor decrease of bandwidth cost could still be a welcome trade-off. If you're making an argument that availability of CPU power at that scale is a concern, it seems like YouTube has the option of Google's cloud services as an excellent candidate for massive, interruptible compute power.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
It's not just bandwidth cost. Google suggests their big win with VP9 deployment is reaching people across the globe with relatively powerful computers but terrible internet connections. By using more powerful compression (paying for it with more computing work at both ends) they can get higher quality video to these users. And from a blunt business perspective: Higher quality videos = more watch time = platform dominance = more ads viewed.
earenndil 9y ago
> vast increase in CPU cost for a minor decrease of bandwidth cost could still be a welcome trade-off I don't think that this would be true, though. Recall the 80-20 rule. They have to encode (CPU) a lot of videos, which will get very few views (bandwidth).
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  Not really. It’s the long tail. The most popular videos are (in addition to likely being ultra resolution like vevo media’s) watched many (8-10?) orders of magnitude more times than the least popular videos. Bandwidth matters, cpu doesn’t. It’s actually the same 80-20 rule. Eighty percent of the costs come fro serving twenty percent of their videos:)

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

It's not just bandwidth cost. Google suggests their big win with VP9 deployment is reaching people across the globe with relatively powerful computers but terrible internet connections. By using more powerful compression (paying for it with more computing work at both ends) they can get higher quality video to these users. And from a blunt business perspective: Higher quality videos = more watch time = platform dominance = more ads viewed.

earenndil 9y ago

> vast increase in CPU cost for a minor decrease of bandwidth cost could still be a welcome trade-off I don't think that this would be true, though. Recall the 80-20 rule. They have to encode (CPU) a lot of videos, which will get very few views (bandwidth).

ComputerGuru 9y ago
Not really. It’s the long tail. The most popular videos are (in addition to likely being ultra resolution like vevo media’s) watched many (8-10?) orders of magnitude more times than the least popular videos. Bandwidth matters, cpu doesn’t. It’s actually the same 80-20 rule. Eighty percent of the costs come fro serving twenty percent of their videos:)