3 ms·

If that qualifies as top 1% and Vimeo is hitting people up for $3000+/year, they must be in utterly dire financial straits. Which is really sad, as they've gen

If that qualifies as top 1% and Vimeo is hitting people up for $3000+/year, they must be in utterly dire financial straits. Which is really sad, as they've generally been the only nominally-competitive youtube alternative.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
And yet people complain about YouTube ads, even though YouTube gives an option to pay to not see ads.
- neonnoodle 5y ago
  But what you can't do on YouTube is pay to not show ads to those viewing your videos. If it were an option, I would pay to have my videos be hosted ad-free on YT for the other features the platform offers. Unfortunately YT doesn't have this option.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes, that would be nice. I meant to illustrate how good the viewers of YouTube have it (it could not be better, of course), given that the main alternative is tapping out.
    - rurp 5y ago
      Sure, but there's a specific reason there are no Youtube alternatives. Google leveraged their funds from a separate monopoly to drive out competitors on this space, and now that they have no viable competition they are free to massivly crank up the ads. If the US weren't so allowing of anti-trust behavior from big tech companies we might live in a world with several major video streaming sites that actually had to compete for creators and viewers.
      - kmeisthax 5y ago
        Maybe. Or maybe we'd live in a world with no major free video sites, because the bandwidth costs of hosting such a thing would be too great for any competitive business to bear. Google gets to run YouTube because they can afford to store a lot of video, and every ISP needs to peer with them just to reduce their own bandwidth costs. Few, if any other companies have that advantage. The monopoly in online video is almost certainly being caused by upstream monopolies in last-mile Internet service, which makes them able to decide what companies can and cannot economically run an online video service.
        everforward 5y ago
        > Maybe. Or maybe we'd live in a world with no major free video sites, because the bandwidth costs of hosting such a thing would be too great for any competitive business to bear. The storage costs have to be astronomical as well. The latest stat I can find is that 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute (~720k hours per day). Even assuming it's all standard definition, that's ~260MB per hour of video, which comes out to ~130GB of data uploaded per minute or roughly 187.2 TB per day. Full HD is roughly 5 times the size, so nearly a petabyte per day. People were estimating YouTube uses an exabyte of storage about 6 years ago. There are very few companies with the economies of scale to support running YouTube the way it currently is.
  - wasmitnetzen 5y ago
    I think there is such an option, it's just not openly advertised. German public broadcasters put a lot of their videos in YouTube, and they're always ad-free (since that is a legal requirement for the broadcaster).
  - bena 5y ago
    Would you pay $3000+/yr?
- withinboredom 5y ago
  I refuse to pay USD$35 (€32) a month for that (the cost of two accounts). That’s outrageous.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    That's for up to 5/6 people, which you can split with. It also includes music streaming, the competition for which charge around ~$10/10€ a month. And you can download stuff for offline viewing on mobile. All in all, it's not a bad deal.
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      In the EU? At least in my locale, it’s €16 a month, per person. I don’t care about music streaming, and the ads got so bad I ended up installing an ad blocker, which prior to that, it didn’t bother me. But interruptions every 10-15 seconds was ridiculous.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        In France it's 12€ per person, or 18€ for "family" (5-6 people). That's quite a good deal with the music, even for just two people.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

And yet people complain about YouTube ads, even though YouTube gives an option to pay to not see ads.

neonnoodle 5y ago
But what you can't do on YouTube is pay to not show ads to those viewing your videos. If it were an option, I would pay to have my videos be hosted ad-free on YT for the other features the platform offers. Unfortunately YT doesn't have this option.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes, that would be nice. I meant to illustrate how good the viewers of YouTube have it (it could not be better, of course), given that the main alternative is tapping out.
  - rurp 5y ago
    Sure, but there's a specific reason there are no Youtube alternatives. Google leveraged their funds from a separate monopoly to drive out competitors on this space, and now that they have no viable competition they are free to massivly crank up the ads. If the US weren't so allowing of anti-trust behavior from big tech companies we might live in a world with several major video streaming sites that actually had to compete for creators and viewers.
    - kmeisthax 5y ago
      Maybe. Or maybe we'd live in a world with no major free video sites, because the bandwidth costs of hosting such a thing would be too great for any competitive business to bear. Google gets to run YouTube because they can afford to store a lot of video, and every ISP needs to peer with them just to reduce their own bandwidth costs. Few, if any other companies have that advantage. The monopoly in online video is almost certainly being caused by upstream monopolies in last-mile Internet service, which makes them able to decide what companies can and cannot economically run an online video service.
      - everforward 5y ago
        > Maybe. Or maybe we'd live in a world with no major free video sites, because the bandwidth costs of hosting such a thing would be too great for any competitive business to bear. The storage costs have to be astronomical as well. The latest stat I can find is that 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute (~720k hours per day). Even assuming it's all standard definition, that's ~260MB per hour of video, which comes out to ~130GB of data uploaded per minute or roughly 187.2 TB per day. Full HD is roughly 5 times the size, so nearly a petabyte per day. People were estimating YouTube uses an exabyte of storage about 6 years ago. There are very few companies with the economies of scale to support running YouTube the way it currently is.
- wasmitnetzen 5y ago
  I think there is such an option, it's just not openly advertised. German public broadcasters put a lot of their videos in YouTube, and they're always ad-free (since that is a legal requirement for the broadcaster).
- bena 5y ago
  Would you pay $3000+/yr?
withinboredom 5y ago
I refuse to pay USD$35 (€32) a month for that (the cost of two accounts). That’s outrageous.
- sofixa 5y ago
  That's for up to 5/6 people, which you can split with. It also includes music streaming, the competition for which charge around ~$10/10€ a month. And you can download stuff for offline viewing on mobile. All in all, it's not a bad deal.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    In the EU? At least in my locale, it’s €16 a month, per person. I don’t care about music streaming, and the ads got so bad I ended up installing an ad blocker, which prior to that, it didn’t bother me. But interruptions every 10-15 seconds was ridiculous.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      In France it's 12€ per person, or 18€ for "family" (5-6 people). That's quite a good deal with the music, even for just two people.