3 ms·

I kinda doubt YT will be anything if it needs to build and maintain its own infrastructure, run its own datacenters, have its own fiber links, etc. Their cost s

by m0zg 7y ago

I kinda doubt YT will be anything if it needs to build and maintain its own infrastructure, run its own datacenters, have its own fiber links, etc. Their cost structure assumes that they get all of those things from Google at a fraction of the cost they'd pay if they had to roll their own or host their stuff in the public cloud. Android could be something, maybe, but if you remove Google's services and AI on the backend it's just a third rate iOS rip-off. Content ads likewise rely on low cost networks, infrastructure, and having everyone's profiles available to them for ads targeting. Remove access to profile and make them fend for themselves, and it's an open question whether they'll survive. I do agree with your last point though: having all these things as a single monolith presents an insurmountable obstacle for other companies to enter the corresponding markets.

prepend 7y ago
I’ve wondered if YouTube could actually build more cheaply using AWS than Google. I don’t think I’ll ever know the answer as it involves super private cost data from Amazon, Google, and Netflix. Traffic stats show YouTube and Netflix [0] pretty close so people are obviously delivering video for profit. [0] https://images.app.goo.gl/AVFevudgSTHhxfM99 https://images.app.goo.gl/AVFevudgSTHhxfM99
- m0zg 7y ago
  Netflix does not deliver video from AWS, though. They use it to encode and run other infra, but for streaming they use NAS/streaming FreeBSD boxes co-located in ISP datacenters. If they streamed from AWS, Netflix would be out of business already.
  - prepend 7y ago
    That’s a good point as the bulk of that transfer isn’t coming from AWS, probably. This still means YouTube doesn’t need google’s infrastructure to stream video.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      It does mean a drastically different cost structure, and major difficulties in operating worldwide.
fjp 7y ago
> if you remove Google's services and AI on the backend it's just a third rate iOS rip-off. yes! they would have to improve or die! that's one of the points of anti-monopoly legislation and enforcement
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  Well said. I love it when people unintentionally back into arguments for why a real free market is good by arguing that a not-actually-free market is better.

by m0zg 7y ago

prepend 7y ago

I’ve wondered if YouTube could actually build more cheaply using AWS than Google. I don’t think I’ll ever know the answer as it involves super private cost data from Amazon, Google, and Netflix. Traffic stats show YouTube and Netflix [0] pretty close so people are obviously delivering video for profit. [0] https://images.app.goo.gl/AVFevudgSTHhxfM99 https://images.app.goo.gl/AVFevudgSTHhxfM99

m0zg 7y ago
Netflix does not deliver video from AWS, though. They use it to encode and run other infra, but for streaming they use NAS/streaming FreeBSD boxes co-located in ISP datacenters. If they streamed from AWS, Netflix would be out of business already.
- prepend 7y ago
  That’s a good point as the bulk of that transfer isn’t coming from AWS, probably. This still means YouTube doesn’t need google’s infrastructure to stream video.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    It does mean a drastically different cost structure, and major difficulties in operating worldwide.

fjp 7y ago

> if you remove Google's services and AI on the backend it's just a third rate iOS rip-off. yes! they would have to improve or die! that's one of the points of anti-monopoly legislation and enforcement

aaronbrethorst 7y ago
Well said. I love it when people unintentionally back into arguments for why a real free market is good by arguing that a not-actually-free market is better.