this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
171 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37720 readers
337 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem isn’t storing it, it’s hosting and delivering content.
YouTube, Netflix, and all the other big streaming platforms have huge amounts of servers around the world delivering content with minimal latency and without saturating the Internet exchanges with gigantic amounts of data traffic.
If we were to do this peer-2-peer people would have to get used to waiting for pages and videos to load again.
So long as the video runs continuously once the page loads, I’m not particularly bothered by latency. Admittedly I’m not everyone, but I think most people care more about the content than the UX. I mean, hell, YouTube has a pretty miserable UX in different ways, not from lack skill on the part of the people who make and maintain it or limitations of technology, but from the poor cooperate incentives and goals that govern it.
It probably wouldn’t. Or you would have to wait a long time.
Try streaming from a site across the world and see how it is today. Then imagine saturating the networks with loads of it.
Would definitely need new infrastructure to cache popular content.