Suppose you had a company that, at it’s core, was closer a vps provider than anything else. People who want to host videos on the service pay a fee. The hosts can solicit money via the usual means (patreon, personally working with advertisers, merch, whatever), but part of the service agreement is that the hosting service itself cannot place their own ads. You also have some backup system in place where after x amount of time, videos get archived to some outside service (Internet Archive, some peer-to-peer mechanism - no idea what the options are). This is to at least try to mitigate storage limitations and other problems with retaining a large back catalogue.
All of this is said from a position of deep ignorance - but could something like this work? My stumbling block is anyone running a company is eventually going to need/want an additional revenue stream and ads are an obvious first stop. For this to exist it would pretty much take an activist owner not budging and ruling with an iron fist. That, and would such a service be able to offer hobbyist hosts a fair price, given this is where a lot of people start?
There’s many services out there like that that will charge you for basically the hardware and bandwidth (i.e. a VPS) but will give you an easy interface to host applications - even federated ones. The problem really is how do you compete with free? It’s “free” to watch and free to upload on YouTube. And all your favourite creators are probably already there because of the network effect YouTube has built over the years. And it’s a great place to discover new ones, too, even ones that have been around longer than you’ve been alive (for some folks, anyway).
From a technical perspective, though, this is pretty feasible. With huge upfront costs. If you rent hardware from existing providers like AWS/DigitalOcean/etc. you’re gonna pay out the ass for it. It doesn’t seem expensive to people who just need a little hardware but we’re talking about video here. You have to store multiple versions of a single video - that’s a ton of hard drive space. You have to encode what is uploaded by the users into a workable format - that’s a ton of compute. So if you were gonna provide it to hobbyists at a reasonable price you’d want to open your own data center (yes people still do that) which will give you some, relatively speaking, very very cheap storage, compute, bandwidth. The only issue is it costs a ton upfront and you need someone to maintain it if you don’t know how.
We need to crowdfund a starting base, and after that the site wouid have to charge something just be reasonable to not like asshole youtube.
Majority of people will always choose free, convenient and what they’re used to
If it’s not free it stands very little chance against something that is all 3
I wonder…
Suppose you had a company that, at it’s core, was closer a vps provider than anything else. People who want to host videos on the service pay a fee. The hosts can solicit money via the usual means (patreon, personally working with advertisers, merch, whatever), but part of the service agreement is that the hosting service itself cannot place their own ads. You also have some backup system in place where after x amount of time, videos get archived to some outside service (Internet Archive, some peer-to-peer mechanism - no idea what the options are). This is to at least try to mitigate storage limitations and other problems with retaining a large back catalogue.
All of this is said from a position of deep ignorance - but could something like this work? My stumbling block is anyone running a company is eventually going to need/want an additional revenue stream and ads are an obvious first stop. For this to exist it would pretty much take an activist owner not budging and ruling with an iron fist. That, and would such a service be able to offer hobbyist hosts a fair price, given this is where a lot of people start?
There’s many services out there like that that will charge you for basically the hardware and bandwidth (i.e. a VPS) but will give you an easy interface to host applications - even federated ones. The problem really is how do you compete with free? It’s “free” to watch and free to upload on YouTube. And all your favourite creators are probably already there because of the network effect YouTube has built over the years. And it’s a great place to discover new ones, too, even ones that have been around longer than you’ve been alive (for some folks, anyway).
From a technical perspective, though, this is pretty feasible. With huge upfront costs. If you rent hardware from existing providers like AWS/DigitalOcean/etc. you’re gonna pay out the ass for it. It doesn’t seem expensive to people who just need a little hardware but we’re talking about video here. You have to store multiple versions of a single video - that’s a ton of hard drive space. You have to encode what is uploaded by the users into a workable format - that’s a ton of compute. So if you were gonna provide it to hobbyists at a reasonable price you’d want to open your own data center (yes people still do that) which will give you some, relatively speaking, very very cheap storage, compute, bandwidth. The only issue is it costs a ton upfront and you need someone to maintain it if you don’t know how.