• catloaf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Processing isn’t the expensive part. It’s bandwidth. Transferring that much data gets expensive.

    • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Storage more likely. Google owns fiber backbones and peers against the tier 1 providers directly. The over all point of ‘no, it’s still prohibitively expensive’ stands unless you’ve got 20B of dark fiber in your pocket.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      And our own bandwidth, too. Google isn’t paying my Internet bill. Hope the rest of my content creators switch soon, otherwise I’ll miss them.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yes, that’s also why bittorrent (which PeerTube runs on, by the way) is a figment of our collective imaginations, impossible to viably implement.

      • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Torrenting was created precisely to solve the bandwidth problem of monolithic servers. You very obviously have no idea how torrents (or PeerTube for that matter) works.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Was my sarcasm not thick enough?

          My point was that PeerTube works just fine because BitTorrent is viable.