4 ms·

It's pretty hard to imagine what people think they gain by "switching" to PeerTube. Beyond idealism, there's not a whole lot going for the platform technically;

It's pretty hard to imagine what people think they gain by "switching" to PeerTube. Beyond idealism, there's not a whole lot going for the platform technically; it isn't peer to peer meaningfully. It would be better to just claim you are paying to self host your videos, which is what the author is doing.

jcims 5y ago
Is there a downside to going to peertube versus self-hosting? Even if you just use it as a CMS for your videos, it seems like it’s all upside to me. Plus it adds a drop to the bucket of network effect for the platform, which appears to be the only viable alternative to YouTube in which the publisher retains the lion’s share of authority.
marci 5y ago
Technically, if I understand correctly, one of the thing going for peertube is that it allows you to survive [insert any popular forum]'s hug of death. Some website don't even handle a surge of connections when it's just text. With peertube, most of the time, you're serving directly from your website, but in case of virality, the video will be distributed across most of the simultaneous viewers.
- RL_Quine 5y ago
  If the website is "hugged", nobody can reach the page with the javascript to make WebRTC connections. People tend to close the window after they're done watching anyway, which sort of negates the whole concept.
godshatter 5y ago
If people want sovereignty, they can run their own server, but no one would find it. Peertube is a good middle ground, especially since you can run your own instance if you really want more control.
ergot_vacation 5y ago
I think Peertube is "marketed" in the wrong way, perhaps inescapably. Making a simple video-hosting platform is going to invite comparisons to Youtube, but Frama is very clear they don't see themselves that way. Peertube is NOT an alternative to Youtube, and it can't be with the tiny team working on it. However, it does have one edge-case use that's come up a few times. If you have a few bucks, moderate technical knowledge, and just need a way to put 20 or 30 videos online in a form that's easy to link to and navigate for the non-technical, Peertube can be a handy tool. In the past you might say "Why not Youtube?", but Youtube has become increasingly obnoxious to use for simple "throwaway" cases. What's the alternative? Tossing the files up on a shady site like Mega? Running an FTP server or hosting a torrent? Youtube used to be a no-brainer for something like this, but there are so many techno-bureaucratic gotchas now that an alternative just might be worth it. There's zero discoverability, no ad revenue, and you have to deal with hosting and security, but at least Peertube is a ready-made package that mostly "just works."
- goatmeal 5y ago
  discoverability isn't zero. you need a foothold on other parts of the fediverse so that people know who you are and once you have that people will subscribe and share.

jcims 5y ago

Is there a downside to going to peertube versus self-hosting? Even if you just use it as a CMS for your videos, it seems like it’s all upside to me. Plus it adds a drop to the bucket of network effect for the platform, which appears to be the only viable alternative to YouTube in which the publisher retains the lion’s share of authority.

marci 5y ago

Technically, if I understand correctly, one of the thing going for peertube is that it allows you to survive [insert any popular forum]'s hug of death. Some website don't even handle a surge of connections when it's just text. With peertube, most of the time, you're serving directly from your website, but in case of virality, the video will be distributed across most of the simultaneous viewers.

RL_Quine 5y ago
If the website is "hugged", nobody can reach the page with the javascript to make WebRTC connections. People tend to close the window after they're done watching anyway, which sort of negates the whole concept.

godshatter 5y ago

If people want sovereignty, they can run their own server, but no one would find it. Peertube is a good middle ground, especially since you can run your own instance if you really want more control.

ergot_vacation 5y ago

I think Peertube is "marketed" in the wrong way, perhaps inescapably. Making a simple video-hosting platform is going to invite comparisons to Youtube, but Frama is very clear they don't see themselves that way. Peertube is NOT an alternative to Youtube, and it can't be with the tiny team working on it. However, it does have one edge-case use that's come up a few times. If you have a few bucks, moderate technical knowledge, and just need a way to put 20 or 30 videos online in a form that's easy to link to and navigate for the non-technical, Peertube can be a handy tool. In the past you might say "Why not Youtube?", but Youtube has become increasingly obnoxious to use for simple "throwaway" cases. What's the alternative? Tossing the files up on a shady site like Mega? Running an FTP server or hosting a torrent? Youtube used to be a no-brainer for something like this, but there are so many techno-bureaucratic gotchas now that an alternative just might be worth it. There's zero discoverability, no ad revenue, and you have to deal with hosting and security, but at least Peertube is a ready-made package that mostly "just works."

goatmeal 5y ago
discoverability isn't zero. you need a foothold on other parts of the fediverse so that people know who you are and once you have that people will subscribe and share.