• jonne
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not peer to peer though. It’s similar to Lemmy and Mastodon where someone hosts an instance and serves video from that. Except with video it gets very expensive, so I don’t think server admins want to see a migration happen.

    A peer to peer solution would actually be cheaper for everyone involved.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does it have a payment model built into it?

      Seems like infrastructure cost is a central problem of video hosting, so features to distribute that cost load among users would be must-have for any video service not bankrolled by a huge corp.

      • jonne
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, if you had users storing the videos locally and a P2P streaming system you could reduce the cost, but I don’t think you can implement something like that through a browser.

        • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically it’s possible, popcorntime worked (or works, I don’t know the current state of it) similarly. It would not work properly on mobile though, p2p is very demanding on poor little device.

          • jonne
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, people would accept running a P2P client on their main computer, but a phone has limited resources where running a P2P server has real costs (in battery, metered bandwidth, etc).

            Maybe it could work like podcasts in the olden days where your subscriptions get predownloaded when possible, but it’s way too many steps compared to YouTube.