• @BURN
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      Storage isn’t cheap

      Network bandwidth isn’t cheap

      Data centers aren’t cheap

      Add on Electricity, Transcoding, Multiple AZs, Backups, cached content with ISPs and engineer salaries and you’ve got a very expensive system.

      That’s not even factoring in payments to creators, which are necessary if you want people to make quality content for the platform.

      Your website serves multiple orders of magnitude less traffic than a single YouTube page. Web costs aren’t linear. It’s an S-Curve where it’s incredibly cheap to get started, but gets exponentially more expensive until you’ve reached some level of critical mass where revenue exceeds costs.

      Video hosting pre-YouTube was terrible. It barely existed, and it wasn’t accessible. They sure didn’t invent it, but they made it possible for the masses to host video.

      No other web content platform has taken off since YouTube. There’s a reason for that, and the majority is cost. To reach a widespread audience you have to invest hundreds of millions into infrastructure. Same reason Twitch still has the critical mass of livestreamers.

    • King
      link
      English
      -11 year ago

      I already covered those points in my previous comments: 500 hours uploaded per minute, more videos = more money needed to host them. I can’t dumb it down further, sorry

        • King
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          the 3 views dont matter youtube has to HOST it, STORE it somewhere, STORAGE costs money oh my god. Youtube was free when they didnt have to store 500 hours of video per minute and if you dont care if youtube dies why do you care if they ask for money, just dont use it?? and yes someone will make a free youtube and host 500 hours per minute for free I hope u dont actually believe this and youre trolling bro