• @lostmypasswordanew
    link
    fedilink
    2410 months ago

    They are not alternatives because they don’t have content. Streaming video is fairly trivial. Having content is not.

    • Chahk
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Streaming video is NOT trivial.

      Video files are big. There’s so much costs involved in hosting, compression, transcoding, distributing across CDNs, and serving, that “free” tiers on those services are just not feasible long-term. Even a multi-billion corporation like Google/Alphabet was only willing to burn cash on that for so long.

      • @jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        PeerTube offloads distributing and serving across the viewers, so the more popular a video becomes, the more “CDN” its viewers provide.

        It only has the “downside” of less control and the inability of the platform to insert ads, so all promotions are directly controlled by the content creators themselves, who “in exchange” only need a minimal server to host their videos.

    • BraveSirZaphod
      link
      fedilink
      610 months ago

      While it’s been hard to find good stats, something to the effect of several hundreds of hours of video footage is uploaded to YouTube every minute.

      Processing, storing, and streaming that is not remotely a trivial task.

    • @Syrup@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      410 months ago

      I’d say content is trivial, but having the sheer variety of content that youtube has is not. Odysee has some decent stuff on there- even some decent original stuff that isn’t just a mirror of someone’s youtube channel. But it’s not going to have the same niche, specific content I might look up on youtube.