4 ms·

Problem is being able to monetize.

littlestymaar 9y ago
There is no monetization concern here, the project is sponsored by Framasoft, a French non-profit organization who wants to provide free-software alternatives to services owned by big corporations.
- deevolution 9y ago
  Free is a loaded term.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
Monetise what? For whom? The thing is distributed, it's not like the host has to shoulder most of the bandwidth costs. If one wants to live off their videos, that's another problem, but most videos don't mean to be monetised at all —no ads, no Patreon, no nothing.
- ralusek 9y ago
  They can just use Patreon in exactly the same way they do for YouTube.
sschueller 9y ago
Most don't get their money from Youtube today. They use patreon, sell stuff and make direct endorsement deals.
KallDrexx 9y ago
While it does follow the cryptocurrency craze, this is one of the goals of LivePeer (https://livepeer.org/ https://livepeer.org/). They are using the crypto-currency as an incentive to provide streaming services and trying to build an incentive around it.
kakarot 9y ago
That's probably the most critical aspect of any YouTube replacement. People idealize about a free-as-in-beer video platform but at the end of the day, those don't pay for quality content to be produced. The YouTube of today can only exist with proper income generation. I have worked through some interesting models for a P2P video platform and a few ideas on how to actually go about implementing advertisements, but I have yet to come up with a solid way of convincing advertisers to play ball on videos whose content they don't like. Currently experimenting with the idea of having two tiers of advertising, a cheap and "premium" tier, and only the premium tier allows you to be selective about which videos your ads run on. The cheap tier videos would have a chance of playing on "premium" (high-engagement) content, but would generally play on "regular" content. The problem is this system still wouldn't likely wouldn't result in a worthwhile payout for more "controversial" producers even if it protects semi-popular non-leftist producers, so an integrated "Patreon"-style donation-subscription service might be something worth exploring.

There is no monetization concern here, the project is sponsored by Framasoft, a French non-profit organization who wants to provide free-software alternatives to services owned by big corporations.

deevolution 9y ago
Free is a loaded term.

loup-vaillant 9y ago

Monetise what? For whom? The thing is distributed, it's not like the host has to shoulder most of the bandwidth costs. If one wants to live off their videos, that's another problem, but most videos don't mean to be monetised at all —no ads, no Patreon, no nothing.

ralusek 9y ago
They can just use Patreon in exactly the same way they do for YouTube.

sschueller 9y ago

Most don't get their money from Youtube today. They use patreon, sell stuff and make direct endorsement deals.

KallDrexx 9y ago

While it does follow the cryptocurrency craze, this is one of the goals of LivePeer (https://livepeer.org/ https://livepeer.org/). They are using the crypto-currency as an incentive to provide streaming services and trying to build an incentive around it.

kakarot 9y ago

That's probably the most critical aspect of any YouTube replacement. People idealize about a free-as-in-beer video platform but at the end of the day, those don't pay for quality content to be produced. The YouTube of today can only exist with proper income generation. I have worked through some interesting models for a P2P video platform and a few ideas on how to actually go about implementing advertisements, but I have yet to come up with a solid way of convincing advertisers to play ball on videos whose content they don't like. Currently experimenting with the idea of having two tiers of advertising, a cheap and "premium" tier, and only the premium tier allows you to be selective about which videos your ads run on. The cheap tier videos would have a chance of playing on "premium" (high-engagement) content, but would generally play on "regular" content. The problem is this system still wouldn't likely wouldn't result in a worthwhile payout for more "controversial" producers even if it protects semi-popular non-leftist producers, so an integrated "Patreon"-style donation-subscription service might be something worth exploring.