News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video. Parent comment

Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by sdinsn on Monday November 11, 2019 @12:58PM (#21507021)
Video distribution is such a hard thing to develop. YouTube isn't profitable; it only exists because Google props it up.

I'd only imagine someone like Netflix, who has existing infrastructure, to actually create a profitable video site.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by creato on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:05PM (#21507092)
Netflix's infrastructure is probably drastically simpler and easier to build. They don't have any of the problems that make caching hard: few/no consistency challenges, and they probably can fit their entirely library in a single server's RAM.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by jaywalk on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:19PM (#21507243)
> they probably can fit their entirely library in a single server's RAM.

You either vastly underestimate the size of their library, or vastly overestimate the maximum amount of RAM a single server can hold.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by cannonedhamster on Monday November 11, 2019 @02:22PM (#21507940)
Netflix creates caching boxes inside the local ISP which reduces both latency and bandwidth requirements for top content. These only store the most popular content.
[ Parent | on HN ]