• bemenaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    And if you were streaming the volume of videos they are, your costs would be astronomical too. Your argument is completely senseless.

    • Kedly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What he's saying is there are alternative methods that cost less, theres a few youtube competitors that use p2p for instance, which'd cut down on hosting costs SIGNIFICANTLY

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

        And you are still missing what I am saying. I don't care if it's P2P or not. If he is personally sending out TB's of data from his server everyday, being P2P means nothing. If TB's of data are leaving his server, then he will have an exponential cost growth to be able to send TB's of data. You're not making an apples to apples comparison. Sending TB's of data a month, let alone a day has an enormous cost to it. There is no avoiding that.

        • Kedly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And he is arguing they are eating costs they dont have to eat, that they are CHOOSING to eat