3 ms·

The root issue here is that the thing people want-- a video hosting site that is free, preserves uploads forever (by contrast with Twitch, which has limited VOD

The root issue here is that the thing people want-- a video hosting site that is free, preserves uploads forever (by contrast with Twitch, which has limited VOD support), has few to no ads, and doesn't algorithmically police copyright-- is just impossible. It can't be operated at a profit. Google is in a better position than anyone to leverage YouTube into profitability-- they have an ad network to take advantage of all the viewership data they get, they own so much fiber and control so much network traffic that they can leverage better rates on bandwidth costs, and they have the expertise of cloud-scale operations-- and they still can't do it: by all accounts YouTube has never made money. And if Google can't, no one can. People who think that this policy change is going to lead to some kind of exodus to a YouTube competitor are fooling themselves. There's no one else in the game and there never will be; it's economically impossible.

vkou 7y ago
> The root issue here is that the thing people want-- a video hosting site that is free, preserves uploads forever (by contrast with Twitch, which has limited VOD support), has few to no ads, and doesn't algorithmically police copyright-- is just impossible. It's worse than that. What you've listed is what the viewers want. What the content creators want is all of the above, but to also get paid money, and to receive free marketing for their content.
cobookman 7y ago
Google also gets the ability to leverage wasted search assets for YT. YT's video long tail is very low IOPs workload. Search on the other hand is high IOPs. As you scale out your HDD storage fleet its great to have the benefit of putting a Low IOPs high storage with a High IOPs low storage.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  This is interesting. Do you know for sure that YouTube actually runs on literally the same disks as the Google search index? Because I used to work for Bing and they definitely did not let any other services share hardware with the search hotpath. Serving search results was a case where every millisecond counted (even delays below the threshold of perception caused a stat-sig drop in revenue), and so even suggesting that the index should share disks with e.g. OneDrive would've gotten you laughed out of the room.
Klathmon 7y ago
I have a feeling we will see a similar (but much slower) cycle with online video as we do with online image hosting. Every few years a new image host pops up since the incumbents are getting so terrible, they promise the world and get popular until one day they need to start paying for the service and introduce ads, then they stop hotlinking, offer pro accounts, and need to manage takedowns and illegal content. Soon they look the same as the service they were meant to replace. And then like clockwork, someone comes along who thinks they can do it better, and it all starts over. I can easily see this playing out with video, but much slower due to everything being bigger, and due to the network effects that at least YouTube currently has.
zozbot234 7y ago
The Internet Archive seems to manage it. It just focuses on video downloads, as opposed to the VOD with real-time streaming that YT does. Of course monetization by video creators is left to out-of-band mechanisms, such as crowdfunding via the likes of Kickstarter and Patreon.
- catalogia 7y ago
  I love the Internet Archive, but sometimes I suspect they keep their hosting costs down by having a website that isn't always easy to use; particularly when it comes to content discovery. If you know what you're looking for, their search engine generally works reasonably well enough. But if you don't know what you're looking for, youtube is much better at suggesting content.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    This is not always a bad thing, as "content discovery" is inherently, well, contentious. And of course the focus on video downloads and away from typical VOD streaming might also be described as making the website "not very easy to use", at least compared to YT. But it also functions to align user behavior, e.g. by heavily discouraging the pointless filler and "high production values" (HD, 4K, HDR etc.) that are rampant on YT itself.

vkou 7y ago

> The root issue here is that the thing people want-- a video hosting site that is free, preserves uploads forever (by contrast with Twitch, which has limited VOD support), has few to no ads, and doesn't algorithmically police copyright-- is just impossible. It's worse than that. What you've listed is what the viewers want. What the content creators want is all of the above, but to also get paid money, and to receive free marketing for their content.

cobookman 7y ago

Google also gets the ability to leverage wasted search assets for YT. YT's video long tail is very low IOPs workload. Search on the other hand is high IOPs. As you scale out your HDD storage fleet its great to have the benefit of putting a Low IOPs high storage with a High IOPs low storage.

Analemma_ 7y ago
This is interesting. Do you know for sure that YouTube actually runs on literally the same disks as the Google search index? Because I used to work for Bing and they definitely did not let any other services share hardware with the search hotpath. Serving search results was a case where every millisecond counted (even delays below the threshold of perception caused a stat-sig drop in revenue), and so even suggesting that the index should share disks with e.g. OneDrive would've gotten you laughed out of the room.

Klathmon 7y ago

I have a feeling we will see a similar (but much slower) cycle with online video as we do with online image hosting. Every few years a new image host pops up since the incumbents are getting so terrible, they promise the world and get popular until one day they need to start paying for the service and introduce ads, then they stop hotlinking, offer pro accounts, and need to manage takedowns and illegal content. Soon they look the same as the service they were meant to replace. And then like clockwork, someone comes along who thinks they can do it better, and it all starts over. I can easily see this playing out with video, but much slower due to everything being bigger, and due to the network effects that at least YouTube currently has.

zozbot234 7y ago

The Internet Archive seems to manage it. It just focuses on video downloads, as opposed to the VOD with real-time streaming that YT does. Of course monetization by video creators is left to out-of-band mechanisms, such as crowdfunding via the likes of Kickstarter and Patreon.

catalogia 7y ago
I love the Internet Archive, but sometimes I suspect they keep their hosting costs down by having a website that isn't always easy to use; particularly when it comes to content discovery. If you know what you're looking for, their search engine generally works reasonably well enough. But if you don't know what you're looking for, youtube is much better at suggesting content.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  This is not always a bad thing, as "content discovery" is inherently, well, contentious. And of course the focus on video downloads and away from typical VOD streaming might also be described as making the website "not very easy to use", at least compared to YT. But it also functions to align user behavior, e.g. by heavily discouraging the pointless filler and "high production values" (HD, 4K, HDR etc.) that are rampant on YT itself.