• KillingTimeItself
    link
    fedilink
    English
    65 months ago

    i highly doubt it. I would think they’re probably doing some UDP packet voodoo bullshit.

    Though it likely appears as transcoded.

    The sheer cost of them being transcoded into videos is immense, even if they’re live encoding every video.

    What happens when you get an ad you need to takedown and remove? You’re on disk transcode is suddenly useless now, and you need to make a new one, easy enough, you can just do that in the background, but this also means your ads are baked into each video, which is less than ideal, unless you’re constantly updating them.

    And if you’re doing live transcodes, that means that you have to do this for every view on every video, and i’m not sure that’s sustainable.

    I suppose you could probably do a cached live transcode system to bring down the overhead, but i can’t imagine it’s easier than just pulling some voodoo networking bullshit to literally inject an advertisement.

    • @tomalley8342
      link
      English
      13
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      AFAIK there is no need to re-encode, since Youtube videos are stored and served in chunks anyways. The change is that they are now slipping in the ad chunks as if they were a part of the normal video chunk stream.

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        yeah that’s what im saying. Re-encoding and transcoding is completely different, it’s more than likely a served change, rather than a stored change.

    • @iopq
      link
      English
      15 months ago

      Nothing to do with UDP