8 ms·
Global instantaneous video hosting infrastructure is a very tough nut to crack and is subject to economies of scale. My experience with Facebook video has been
by confluence 14y ago
Global instantaneous video hosting infrastructure is a very tough nut to crack and is subject to economies of scale.
My experience with Facebook video has been disappointing (improper caching/not enough resources) and at no fault of their own. Pushing Tbits of video each second around the world is much - much harder than hosting pictures and comments (which is what Fb does admirably).
If Fb cracks video infrastructure - perhaps. But YouTube remains the king of video and anyone who wants to run content needs to be on YouTube (at least for the time being - subject to change at any time).
- waterlesscloud 14y agoI've wondered before if Vevo does some sort of CDN style hosting outside of Youtube. Their videos seem to load at a different speed from the rest of the stuff on Youtube. I've got no evidence other than my own sketchy observation, but the though has crossed my mind several times.
- confluence 14y agoVEVO is a highly viewed channel - hence probabilistically their videos are going to be viewed more often and use more bandwith. Hence, YouTube caches them more heavily (and distributes them closer to viewers) as a result to probabilistically reduce video latency and cost of hosting. Same with any highly viewed channel - they all load faster than say something new with ~1000 views which hits a foreign data centre hard disk instead of a localised CDN server's RAM.