But do things like that actually translate into respectable revenue? I understand that there are technically ways to get paid, but they only matter to creators if they actually fill their pockets.
The problem is nobody is crazy enough to host these much videos other than Google. Google wants to stay as a monopoly in long-form video sharing platforms and I don’t think Google is actually making much money in return comparing the cost if Petabytes of video files getting uploaded all the time.
Even after keeping a huge chunk of money that they get from advertisers, I still don’t think it’s that profitable but Somany people use YouTube and - they get to also stalk our online activity and do god knows what with allaaat data.
That’s a big part of what PeerTube tries to address. Yes, the videos still must be hosted somewhere, but PeerTube streams the video as a torrent where the host is the tracker and guaranteed seed while every client streaming the video is a torrent client that shares what it already has with every other active stream to reduce demand on the host. It’s not a perfect solution since the host must act as a guaranteed seeder, but for popular videos actively being streamed by many people at once, it has the potential to massively reduce traffic for those streams.
For less popular videos that may not have more than one viewer in any given moment, though, there’s likely no real impact. If it got some more development interest, I could see it getting archival clients that behave sort of like an *Arr server for media management, allowing users to save their favorite videos in exchange for acting as an extra seed over some longer term. That’d help, but it’s definitely not a full solution.
There is buycoffie site to give donation to creators. Many yt creators dont get much money from yt ads cause they get demonetisation frequently.
But do things like that actually translate into respectable revenue? I understand that there are technically ways to get paid, but they only matter to creators if they actually fill their pockets.
The problem is nobody is crazy enough to host these much videos other than Google. Google wants to stay as a monopoly in long-form video sharing platforms and I don’t think Google is actually making much money in return comparing the cost if Petabytes of video files getting uploaded all the time.
Even after keeping a huge chunk of money that they get from advertisers, I still don’t think it’s that profitable but Somany people use YouTube and - they get to also stalk our online activity and do god knows what with allaaat data.
That’s a big part of what PeerTube tries to address. Yes, the videos still must be hosted somewhere, but PeerTube streams the video as a torrent where the host is the tracker and guaranteed seed while every client streaming the video is a torrent client that shares what it already has with every other active stream to reduce demand on the host. It’s not a perfect solution since the host must act as a guaranteed seeder, but for popular videos actively being streamed by many people at once, it has the potential to massively reduce traffic for those streams.
For less popular videos that may not have more than one viewer in any given moment, though, there’s likely no real impact. If it got some more development interest, I could see it getting archival clients that behave sort of like an *Arr server for media management, allowing users to save their favorite videos in exchange for acting as an extra seed over some longer term. That’d help, but it’s definitely not a full solution.