• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    If you tried to create a centralized one? Yeah, it would take a lot. Would a decentralized one be as expensive? I’m not sure.

    I think the best goal would be to try to create a platform for creators that has a low barrier to entry - both in terms of cost and skill - that gives them the ability to easily and quickly set up a “channel” to “broadcast” from and earn some revenue somehow.

    Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?

      Because thats the very reason why people hate current streaming services, and you’re arguing to not only make it worse than that, but to make the end users eat the costs of storage and bandwidth.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You don’t understand why people hate streaming fragmentation.

        You can have a billion decentralized openyoutube all on the same page, just look how lemmy already does it.

        Podcast also did it with RSS. Agglomeration isn’t an issue on a decentralized open platform

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If they shared the same protocol, or at least reasonably compatible versions of it, you could have one app that does all of them.

        • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

          Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…

          • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sponsors pay much more than views. So does patrons.

            The true issue is discoverability in my opinion.

            • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

              Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

              Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

              Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)