• tweeks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Most other companies can be selective in what they host / stream. YouTube will host/stream anything users upload and that’s actually quite insane. Current statistics say that YouTubers upload 30.000 hours of video… per hour.

    Aside from the streaming/processing, only the disk space that would need is already frightening. Most of those videos will never be seen, and no ads will be played on them. The setup needed for this is massively more impressive to me than services like Netflix.

    Do you perhaps have a source for those profit margins? I really wonder if they’re already running break even.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      From a technical perspective, I wonder what they do with those seldom viewed videos. Do they get stored somewhere in slower, deep storage, only to be eventually transferred out and cached when they’re actively receiving views? I imagine you wouldn’t want to waste faster, more expensive storage on something that’ll likely rarely to be retrieved.

    • muelltonne@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Don’t worry about YouTube - according to alphabets filings they account for ~10% of Googles ad revenue. Google is posting record profits every quarter, so they should manage.