• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      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-Lemmygod
      link
      fedilink
      English
      95 months ago

      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]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        75 months ago

        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]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          35 months ago

          Sponsors pay much more than views. So does patrons.

          The true issue is discoverability in my opinion.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            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)