4 ms·
it does feel to me you do mostly have to use YouTube. I can afford to host video if it becomes remotely popular.
by tokyodude 8y ago
it does feel to me you do mostly have to use YouTube. I can afford to host video if it becomes remotely popular.
- true_religion 8y agoYes, it costs money to give things away for free. Now you can have YouTube do it, and play by their rules which help them keep costs low... or you can do it yourself. Personally, I would put up a snippet, the serve a torrent. If it gets popular, its popularity will support it. Otherwise, I can support my hobby with a seed box for 15 a month.
- ipsum2 8y agoI'm curious, how much bandwidth does a popular video take, assuming its encoded? I picked a random Youtube video that was 5 minutes long, downloaded it in 1080p, 53MB in size. The video got 100,000 views, which takes 5TB to transfer. I'm not sure about other cloud platforms, but on DigitalOcean (I haven't found any reputable hosting thats cheaper) the transfer cost is $0.01/GB, so it would cost $53 dollars, which doesn't include CDN. If you made ate least $0.0005 per video watched, you would make up your bandwidth costs. You can probably 20x this price for CDN/other cloud providers, so if you were making at least a penny per view, you would break even. Some simplifications made: 1) Didn't include peak bandwidth/if the pipe is big enough at peak hours. 2) Assumed all viewers watched the video from beginning to end, instead of stopping 20% of the way through.