5 ms·
Constantly reducing is not the same as less expensive. Independent video streaming is still very expensive, both in hardware cost and bandwidth cost, and if you
by pavs 8y ago
Constantly reducing is not the same as less expensive.
Independent video streaming is still very expensive, both in hardware cost and bandwidth cost, and if you have a global audience, then you will have to rely on CDN, which for video is not cheap at all.
Youtube for the longest time, ran on loss - until recently.
Only after Google had reliable penetration all over the globe using their on-premise GGC (aka google CDN) solution, which relies on the user (ISP) bearing the cost of hosting the hardware and the bandwidth that run through it, that now Youtube has the infrastructure to make it profitable.
I don't honestly see youtube being seriously challenged. Yes, there might be pockets of competitions - but far far from a serious challenge.
Unless an individual producer has very high marketable demand that he can get a premium price from advertisers or charges users per video, I don't see how hosting videos for individuals is profitable. Corporations are a different story, and even they often rely on Youtube.
- rocqua 8y agoA big CDN could do it, I think cloudfare recently launched a new video service. If they wanted to, they could build on that. More likely would be something like wordpress using this as a back-end. That feels like a great open-source project. Discovery could be done with RSS, trying to copy the podcast model. Whilst its not great to replace one big company with another, it is at least good to have an alternative to keep youtube from being too crazy.