this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
607 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

59707 readers
5308 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A_Random_Idiot 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?

Because thats the very reason why people hate current streaming services, and you're arguing to not only make it worse than that, but to make the end users eat the costs of storage and bandwidth.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You don't understand why people hate streaming fragmentation.

You can have a billion decentralized openyoutube all on the same page, just look how lemmy already does it.

Podcast also did it with RSS. Agglomeration isn't an issue on a decentralized open platform

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If they shared the same protocol, or at least reasonably compatible versions of it, you could have one app that does all of them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The protocol isn't the hard part. It's the monetizing that is. Creators aren't looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn't ideal...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sponsors pay much more than views. So does patrons.

The true issue is discoverability in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it's not being monetized

Also it's worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

Patreon is irrelevant, that's just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it's essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren't going to financial contribute. It's the age old "why don't you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time", that hasn't been true before and likely isn't here. Creators aren't looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we're used to today)