• bemenaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    How are they supposed to pay for the infrastructure that you’re using to watch it. Do you even have a clue what it costs to run YouTube for a month? The ads keep the servers up. BTW it’s in the tens of millions a month if not more to run YouTube.

    • fosstulate@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one has a clue what it ‘costs’ because YT isn’t honest about revenue, and being a subsidiary its P&L statements can be adjusted to spread any narrative around profitability it considers useful. In the context of Alphabet its operating cost is probably negligible.

      You’re already paying them data tribute through daily interaction with much of the corporate web.

      • Jako301@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Requests cost nothing, data storage and bandwidth usage do.

        People upload over 500 hours of videos every minute, that’s 256.320.000hours each year. Let’s say that most of it is lower quality instead of 4K, so each hour takes 0.5GB of storage. That’s 128PB every year. Youtube overall size probably reached Exabytes in the last few years.

        Their daily bandwidth usage probably ranges way into Petabytes too, something you were orders of magnitude away over the whole life cycle of your site.

          • 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

      • filcuk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you know the enormous amount of data it takes to stream video? And how much infrastructure to have such seamless loading as youtube does, caching copies of popular videos all across the world?