3 ms·

Anything that people will actually use will become popular and will need to run ads to support itself, so it ends up in the same situation as youtube. The pres

Anything that people will actually use will become popular and will need to run ads to support itself, so it ends up in the same situation as youtube. The pressures that make youtube act the way it does aren't going to be significantly different for another provider.

bilbo0s 7y ago
So, what you're saying, is that another business model is more what we need? How do we get there? Assuming users still don't want to pay for cat videos.
- imglorp 7y ago
  Here's an experiment that might not be well known. They have a little incentive ecosystem and the vids are hosted on IPFS. https://about.d.tube https://about.d.tube
- vkou 7y ago
  Yes, only another business model would solve this issue. > How do we get there? Assuming users still don't want to pay for cat videos. Peer-to-peer torrent-like distribution. Of course, then you'll have the problem where the system will be full of pirated content, illegal content, etc, and you'll get to enjoy attention from police and regulators.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Not to mention that anything unpopular will be poorly distributed and harder to access than popular stuff... which kinda defeats the point really. YouTube loves popular stuff because it makes money.
  - zanny 7y ago
    Peertube already exists and has seen growing usage: https://joinpeertube.org https://joinpeertube.org Of course, it doesn't have an ad or patronage model built in.
    - vkou 7y ago
      So, what you're saying is that it's useless to the people complaining about their videos being demonetized, or not getting a firehose of algorithmic marketing.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  Host it yourself. Back to how the internet was envisaged - a network of peers, not a network of clients and hubs. See https://solid.inrupt.com/about https://solid.inrupt.com/about
  - jasode 7y ago
    >Host it yourself. No, that self-hosting option doesn't replace Youtube. A lot of techies seem to have a blind spot as to the real value Youtube provides to content creators and video uploaders: $0 hosting costs for unlimited audience. No self-hosted tech stack or home-based network appliance to stream videos can offer that same financial deal. Techies seem to only see the technical stack and the protocol to host a video. The intimate knowledge computers is actually misdirecting you away from the real strengths of Youtube. Instead, look at Youtube the same way a non-techie content creator would. My previous comments trying to explain this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18488484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18488484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19940180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19940180
    - DrScientist 7y ago
      For those treating youtube as a business - you are right that you trade upfront risk ( the only thing you lose is your time ), a promotion platform and the ability to scale, for reduced slice of any revenue and loss of control. However people making money on youtube are a significant minority. Most uses are not that use. So in terms of non-commercial sharing - I already pay for my internet connection and fibre 'upload' speeds ( from home-out ) are very under-utilized. Also usage isn't metered - the limit is maxbandwidth X time. So the only risk here is being too popular - which is frankly unlikely! If you wanted to scale - p2p is an option - the issues around illegal content etc - that can be fixed if you have identity and permissions built in - the people who share are identifiable and you only choose to peer people/content you approve. Imagine it being like a retweet - with just the same legal consequences, but with just the same potential to reach millions - but without a single company in control...
- imgabe 7y ago
  Content creators could pay the hosting costs for their video and sell ads themselves.

bilbo0s 7y ago

So, what you're saying, is that another business model is more what we need? How do we get there? Assuming users still don't want to pay for cat videos.

imglorp 7y ago
Here's an experiment that might not be well known. They have a little incentive ecosystem and the vids are hosted on IPFS. https://about.d.tube https://about.d.tube
vkou 7y ago
Yes, only another business model would solve this issue. > How do we get there? Assuming users still don't want to pay for cat videos. Peer-to-peer torrent-like distribution. Of course, then you'll have the problem where the system will be full of pirated content, illegal content, etc, and you'll get to enjoy attention from police and regulators.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Not to mention that anything unpopular will be poorly distributed and harder to access than popular stuff... which kinda defeats the point really. YouTube loves popular stuff because it makes money.
- zanny 7y ago
  Peertube already exists and has seen growing usage: https://joinpeertube.org https://joinpeertube.org Of course, it doesn't have an ad or patronage model built in.
  - vkou 7y ago
    So, what you're saying is that it's useless to the people complaining about their videos being demonetized, or not getting a firehose of algorithmic marketing.
DrScientist 7y ago
Host it yourself. Back to how the internet was envisaged - a network of peers, not a network of clients and hubs. See https://solid.inrupt.com/about https://solid.inrupt.com/about
- jasode 7y ago
  >Host it yourself. No, that self-hosting option doesn't replace Youtube. A lot of techies seem to have a blind spot as to the real value Youtube provides to content creators and video uploaders: $0 hosting costs for unlimited audience. No self-hosted tech stack or home-based network appliance to stream videos can offer that same financial deal. Techies seem to only see the technical stack and the protocol to host a video. The intimate knowledge computers is actually misdirecting you away from the real strengths of Youtube. Instead, look at Youtube the same way a non-techie content creator would. My previous comments trying to explain this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18488484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18488484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19939392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19940180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19940180
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    For those treating youtube as a business - you are right that you trade upfront risk ( the only thing you lose is your time ), a promotion platform and the ability to scale, for reduced slice of any revenue and loss of control. However people making money on youtube are a significant minority. Most uses are not that use. So in terms of non-commercial sharing - I already pay for my internet connection and fibre 'upload' speeds ( from home-out ) are very under-utilized. Also usage isn't metered - the limit is maxbandwidth X time. So the only risk here is being too popular - which is frankly unlikely! If you wanted to scale - p2p is an option - the issues around illegal content etc - that can be fixed if you have identity and permissions built in - the people who share are identifiable and you only choose to peer people/content you approve. Imagine it being like a retweet - with just the same legal consequences, but with just the same potential to reach millions - but without a single company in control...
imgabe 7y ago
Content creators could pay the hosting costs for their video and sell ads themselves.