5 ms·
I didn't do the calculations, but it sounds like trading hosting cost for GPU cost. Or you can decode on client side, but what if the client device is not powe
by raincole 3y ago
I didn't do the calculations, but it sounds like trading hosting cost for GPU cost.
Or you can decode on client side, but what if the client device is not powerful enough? Maybe decode on server or client depending on if the user has better internet connection or GPU...?
But anyway it's not my point at all. My point is that if your "killing feature" to attract existing YouTube users to your platform is "No ads", then, well, good luck to survive financially.
- amlib 3y agoArguably having a more efficient video codec lowers the financial burden on those types of sites, tough probably not enough. Going a bit further, I'm also not just thinking of content aggregation "tube" sites but such advances could allow content creators to self host video in their own websites, just like we do with images on a blog post for the last 25 years. But of curse, hosting your own site is a bit out of fashion nowadays :(