• Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But we act like youtube is something more then just a place to post videos. We can build a new youtube tomorrow if people weren't so invested in it. If you have some content on YouTube you just can't live without fine but for everything else lets migrate… sorry, got a little preachy.

    • Sestren@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, that's completely untrue… The reason we can't just create a new youtube is the same reason there aren't more ISPs. The infrastructure cost is too high.

      You can't just build a site that allows video uploads and playback, throw it on a Pi and release it to the world. You need scalability, and that costs money.

      Maybe the end solution is a distributed system, but that's not something you can easily sell to the average Joe that doesn't give a shit about the "how" or "why" with Youtube, and simply wants to watch videos.

      I'm not saying that Google isn't the scum of the earth, but there is currently no feasible way to recreate what they've made/bought without an absolutely stupid amount of money.

      • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        YouTube itself is bound to implode because of the cost of all that infrastructure… sheesh. I recently reduced my YT time to the bare minimum, after being screwed out of premium (light), and found out about Peertube. It's pretty bare bones, but viral videos can use P2P to offload the main server, which I thought was smart and fair. So, federated YouTube can be done I think. It won't be easy though, or cheap.

    • amio@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can build a new youtube tomorrow

      Unfortunately not. The cost would be astronomical. Youtube bled money like a stuck pig for a long time, and their monetization has turned out predictably awful, every time.

      Don't get me wrong, the competition would be great, or at least having the option of something… less Youtube. There's a reason you don't see a lot of alternatives around, though, and certainly nothing at the same kind of scale.

    • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get your heart's in the right place. But good luck finding investors to pay for the massive infrastructure costs to back your YouTube alternative (read competitor) without a plan to extract money from someone. Not even to break even, but to turn a profit.

      It would be nice if there was public money to create these alternatives - that was m way you wouldn't have to worry about profit, just whether your solution is meeting the public need.

    • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don't know how much it costs to run or how ads fully function on the service, but we do have Odysee. I have yet to have seen a single ad from my collection in the app outside of creators whose vid that's also up on yt having a sponsored segment.

      Edit:

      Just booted up the app for the first time in a while and they have some minor things. Noticed a little bar at the top with a list of channels and scrolled down to find a featured section.