Literally everyone is not listening to what I’m saying so I’ll just say it here again as clear as I can:
YouTube costs money because infrastructure costs are exponential. It doesn’t have to be that way. Host your own shit, it’s so unbelievably cheap.
I have my own live-streaming infrastructure. I have my own music streaming infrastructure. I have my own video sync infrastructure that so far has not even stuttered for people on the other side of the globe even with 30+ people watching at once. This costs jack shit to do. Spread it out. Host your own.
This is of course ignoring that corporate executive pay is insane and you could definitely cut that in half, but we don’t. We pass the costs of the fifth execute yacht to the consumers, and here we have like 5 people defending that structure as if it just has to be that way. It doesn’t. It wasn’t like that before Google started owning everything.
And yes, for the record, I am not using YouTube. YouTube currently barely works on my browser so I just don’t use it.
And if you were streaming the volume of videos they are, your costs would be astronomical too. Your argument is completely senseless.
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
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.