It feels like we should have solved this issue a decade ago with bittorrent.
A website is just a frontend for a fileserver, so why are we not distributing these files across the globe, where we all volunteer a bit of storage and bandwidth to services we want to use.
Websites really need be nothing more than indexes and trackers which serve up a list of peers who are hosting the files we want.
Youtube itself might not be making a profit, but I double Google as a whole isn’t by having YouTube. They keep you in their ecosystem longer, and that’s good for them regardless of if you’re watching ads.
It feels like we should have solved this issue a decade ago with bittorrent.
A website is just a frontend for a fileserver, so why are we not distributing these files across the globe, where we all volunteer a bit of storage and bandwidth to services we want to use.
Websites really need be nothing more than indexes and trackers which serve up a list of peers who are hosting the files we want.
I doubt a p2p network would be able to match YouTube:s current performance.
How would the content creators get rewarded in that system? Some of the YouTube ad money goes to the channel the ad is shown on.
It’s harder to profit from that, so obviously that’s not the direction things went.
To be fair, they aren’t exactly profiting from the current strategy.
Youtube itself might not be making a profit, but I double Google as a whole isn’t by having YouTube. They keep you in their ecosystem longer, and that’s good for them regardless of if you’re watching ads.
Because have you ever stumbled upon dead torrents? I see this more as a backup method to relieve the load rather than the only one.
(Wish I had a perma-online SBC to seed my torrents btw)