4 ms·

Disclaimer: I work on YouTube's video players. But I don't speak for the company in any way (this is my personal account on my personal computer on my time off

Disclaimer: I work on YouTube's video players. But I don't speak for the company in any way (this is my personal account on my personal computer on my time off from work). If I understand this correctly, it's worth clarifying that "60% less bandwidth" is for the website host, not the client. Which yeah, is expected if you're using a P2P protocol to offload your bandwidth costs to your users. But it's not a 60% bandwidth savings for the consumer. I know some might think that's obvious but it's always worth clarifying whose bandwidth you're talking about.

DudeInBasement 5y ago
How much security savings do I get?
enlyth 5y ago
As I understand it, when you want to save bandwidth for the clients you're always limited by the video codec, or you have to take a tradeoff in lowering the quality. So you're stuck with either VP9, or HEVC which is not royalty free, because nothing better exists at the moment.
- cornstalks 5y ago
  AV1 exists, and is actively used for serving a good chunk of YouTube content. But yeah, codecs and smart format selections/ABR are critical to reducing bandwidth.
naeeqn 5y ago
Unrelated to this link, but youtube is WAY slower than pretty much any other video alternatives. Note I even use the embed link for the video and have ublock, so it's not the youtube UI boggling it down. Don't feel like writing more right now, but just felt like saying youtube is terrible in performance to my eyes.
- verdverm 5y ago
  GP is not referring to the UI side of things. He is essentially saying that clients need 100% of the video, while under this P2P scheme, 60% of your outgoing video packets can be offloaded to other users in the system. Regardless of scheme, the same amount of data needs to be moved around, it's just a semantic perspective on who is "saving" bandwidth. If your consumer internet plan has caps, your p2p uploads might count against your quota, so you are in effect "losing" bandwidth.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

DudeInBasement 5y ago

How much security savings do I get?

enlyth 5y ago

As I understand it, when you want to save bandwidth for the clients you're always limited by the video codec, or you have to take a tradeoff in lowering the quality. So you're stuck with either VP9, or HEVC which is not royalty free, because nothing better exists at the moment.

cornstalks 5y ago
AV1 exists, and is actively used for serving a good chunk of YouTube content. But yeah, codecs and smart format selections/ABR are critical to reducing bandwidth.

naeeqn 5y ago

Unrelated to this link, but youtube is WAY slower than pretty much any other video alternatives. Note I even use the embed link for the video and have ublock, so it's not the youtube UI boggling it down. Don't feel like writing more right now, but just felt like saying youtube is terrible in performance to my eyes.

verdverm 5y ago
GP is not referring to the UI side of things. He is essentially saying that clients need 100% of the video, while under this P2P scheme, 60% of your outgoing video packets can be offloaded to other users in the system. Regardless of scheme, the same amount of data needs to be moved around, it's just a semantic perspective on who is "saving" bandwidth. If your consumer internet plan has caps, your p2p uploads might count against your quota, so you are in effect "losing" bandwidth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]