4 ms·

> You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (b

by jpc0 3y ago

> You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. In any place where IT can even think about self hosting video they likely control the user's entire tech stack and don't need a super flexible player, they can just use a video tag... On the other hand a company like this is more likely to use a SaaS product because they would have done a cost benefit analysis and figured spinning up a server and allocating bandwidth which could include significant network stack upgrades would cost far too much money to self host video. Also it's free to stick the video on YouTube as an unisted video and embed the player... There is also other platforms that can be paid for the exact same service...

austin-cheney 3y ago
I get so tired of hearing about tech stacks. Tech stack discussions are 90% developers spinning their wheels and 10% money. Its really closer to 80/20, but most developers cannot get out of their own heads enough to reach a 20% discussion about money and business expenses.
- FalconSensei 3y ago
  In the current scenario with companies cost-cutting, I would say money is 30% or 40%.
- jpc0 3y ago
  In this instance tech stack has nothing to do with developers but rather what software and hardware is deployed to end users. An example: HP ProBook + Win 11 + Microsoft 365 each allocated x amount of bandwidth allowed to burst to Y amount It can get significantly more in depth than that and it's 90% cost driven unlike choosing which DB you will be using as a developer...
johnchristopher 3y ago
> > You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. > It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. Sure it does. We have been discussing it for weeks with colleagues and bed testing it. Next step is to consider using v5 or v6. > In any place where IT can even think about self hosting video they likely control the user's entire tech stack and don't need a super flexible player, they can just use a video tag... I had written a longer comment but if you equate slapping an mp4 URL in a video tag with what peertube brings then I frankly don't see the point. Not sure what controlling the user's entire tech stack even means then. > On the other hand a company like this is more likely to use a SaaS product because they would have done a cost benefit analysis and figured spinning up a server and allocating bandwidth which could include significant network stack upgrades would cost far too much money to self host video. Pretty sure peertube and its variable bitrate and resolution will use less bandwidth than a user's original mp4 file in a video tag would but okay. edit: > Also it's free to stick the video on YouTube as an unisted video and embed the player... Yeah, right. What can go wrong uh...
- jpc0 3y ago
  > Not sure what controlling the user's entire tech stack even means then. Hardware and software they are running as well as bandwidth available to them both at home offices as well as on site offices. So yes just directly serving whatever bitrate video would be equivalent to YouTube 1080p internally as the only option is just fine since even if it's less bandwidth I don't think any of my users would want to be watching 360p video. And at the same time I don't need to allocate too much bandwidth for on my own server that since I can easily offload that to a CDN. If I need to serve a large repository of videos I wouldn't self host, I would pay a SaaS since storage costs alone would be absurd, having to then also store not only the high bitrate masters but also every intermediate format...
  - jpc0 3y ago
    > > Also it's free to stick the video on YouTube as an unisted video and embed the player... Yeah, right. What can go wrong uh... Naturally a lot, but for a company that won't pay the actually low rates a SaaS provider charges for this, this would work just fine... Also why I mentioned that there are SaaS providers that do offer that which is a little more reliable. I believe one if them is the new up and coming one called Microsoft that most companies already have some sort of business agreement with.

by jpc0 3y ago

austin-cheney 3y ago

I get so tired of hearing about tech stacks. Tech stack discussions are 90% developers spinning their wheels and 10% money. Its really closer to 80/20, but most developers cannot get out of their own heads enough to reach a 20% discussion about money and business expenses.

FalconSensei 3y ago
In the current scenario with companies cost-cutting, I would say money is 30% or 40%.
jpc0 3y ago
In this instance tech stack has nothing to do with developers but rather what software and hardware is deployed to end users. An example: HP ProBook + Win 11 + Microsoft 365 each allocated x amount of bandwidth allowed to burst to Y amount It can get significantly more in depth than that and it's 90% cost driven unlike choosing which DB you will be using as a developer...

johnchristopher 3y ago

> > You miss another user story: IT department wants to self host a video distribution platform on their intranet and users need to embed video in intranet CMS (blogs, wikis, kb, etc.) and they will watch those videos at home, at the office and in between places. > It's not missed, that story doesn't exist. Sure it does. We have been discussing it for weeks with colleagues and bed testing it. Next step is to consider using v5 or v6. > In any place where IT can even think about self hosting video they likely control the user's entire tech stack and don't need a super flexible player, they can just use a video tag... I had written a longer comment but if you equate slapping an mp4 URL in a video tag with what peertube brings then I frankly don't see the point. Not sure what controlling the user's entire tech stack even means then. > On the other hand a company like this is more likely to use a SaaS product because they would have done a cost benefit analysis and figured spinning up a server and allocating bandwidth which could include significant network stack upgrades would cost far too much money to self host video. Pretty sure peertube and its variable bitrate and resolution will use less bandwidth than a user's original mp4 file in a video tag would but okay. edit: > Also it's free to stick the video on YouTube as an unisted video and embed the player... Yeah, right. What can go wrong uh...

jpc0 3y ago
> Not sure what controlling the user's entire tech stack even means then. Hardware and software they are running as well as bandwidth available to them both at home offices as well as on site offices. So yes just directly serving whatever bitrate video would be equivalent to YouTube 1080p internally as the only option is just fine since even if it's less bandwidth I don't think any of my users would want to be watching 360p video. And at the same time I don't need to allocate too much bandwidth for on my own server that since I can easily offload that to a CDN. If I need to serve a large repository of videos I wouldn't self host, I would pay a SaaS since storage costs alone would be absurd, having to then also store not only the high bitrate masters but also every intermediate format...
- jpc0 3y ago
  > > Also it's free to stick the video on YouTube as an unisted video and embed the player... Yeah, right. What can go wrong uh... Naturally a lot, but for a company that won't pay the actually low rates a SaaS provider charges for this, this would work just fine... Also why I mentioned that there are SaaS providers that do offer that which is a little more reliable. I believe one if them is the new up and coming one called Microsoft that most companies already have some sort of business agreement with.