TBH I’m not sure if a platform like YouTube will ever exist in a non-commercial way. Many creators that I follow reached a level of professionalism that comes with significant costs. You need expensive cameras, microphones, lights, high-end computers, drones, personnel costs for cutters and people that help with research. They have travel costs, sometimes rent for offices etc. All that just to produce the content.
On top, there are significant costs for hosting. I mean YouTube is hosted on multiple data centers rather than a bunch of servers or even home computers. Already Lemmy, which is mostly text and pictures, is a decent financial burden to instance owners. Not to mention the time for moderation and administration. And even here, in a place full of hardcore FOSS supporters, it’s not like admins are drowned in donations.
If YouTube ads and product placements are the only source of income for content creators, then the only alternative would be that consumers directly pay for the content and the platform. Or that such a platform would be paid by some state / taxes. Both of which don’t sound very realistic to me.
Many creators that I follow reached a level of professionalism that comes with significant costs. You need expensive cameras, microphones, lights, high-end computers, drones, personnel costs for cutters and people that help with research. They have travel costs, sometimes rent for offices etc. All that just to produce the content.
Not everybody needs that. You can still produce good content without spending thousands of dollars on all of that. In fact, swinging the level of professionalism too far can alienate an audience. It’s all about manufacturing authenticity.
On top, there are significant costs for hosting. I mean YouTube is hosted on multiple data centers rather than a bunch of servers or even home computers. Already Lemmy, which is mostly text and pictures, is a decent financial burden to instance owners. Not to mention the time for moderation and administration. And even here, in a place full of hardcore FOSS supporters, it’s not like admins are drowned in donations.
I agree. PeerTube is neat, but I don’t think it’s there yet. Even with peer-to-peer options, it doesn’t really work when there are more video posters than viewers.
If YouTube ads and product placements are the only source of income for content creators, then the only alternative would be that consumers directly pay for the content and the platform.
You mean Patreon? YouTube ads are no way to make a living, so Patreon has taken over as the revenue source for most creators. Eventually, they want more money and start taking product offers, trying to sell you G-Fuel or whatever disreputable product lands in their inbox.
All agreed. Some of my favorite content is very plain. Hickok45 has a couple of channels and zero frills. He just shoots guns and discusses the in and outs. He’s like your cool grandad. LOL, his new channel is just short videos of him sitting down and discussing various topics that are on his mind.
Paul Harrel (RIP) was more formal in his presentations, but much the same as to costs. Paul videos are a masterclass on how to present a subject without bias. He would tell you what he’s going to tell you, tell you, tell you what he told you, and at the end invite you to form your own opinion. You get spoiled watching his single-take shots and start finding other YouTubers, with their constant edits, annoying.
Peter Santenello looks to only spend money on gas and lodging while he cruises America with a selfie stick. Peter is highly recommended! You meet people you would never have met IRL and learn what life is like for them. He’s nearly without bias and asks tough questions at times. Only video I saw where he got a bit emotional was his trip to Kensington in Philly. He’s been to some hellaciously poor places in America but Kensington appalled him.
Is there a credible source for the costs of hosting? Wikipedia is listing similar ad revenues as you did but no info on the costs. YouTube has 2.7 billion users that watch in average around 11 hours of videos a month. If 2 billion USD/y would be sufficient to host all that that’d be just 0,74 USD/user*year or 0,06 USD per month. That sounds really cheap considering that you have to pay for storage, traffic, backups and redundancies (at least I never heard of significant outages or data loss on YT).
Does anyone have a credible source on the number of employees YouTube has? If you search for that you fine vastly different number from just 2k to 189k employees.
Many creators that I follow reached a level of professionalism that comes with significant costs. You need expensive cameras, microphones, lights, high-end computers, drones, personnel costs for cutters and people that help with research. They have travel costs, sometimes rent for offices etc.
None of that bloat is necessary for engaging your audience, only for currying favour with the black-box algorithm. Level1ShowNews is three people at a desk with an OBS setup and I’ve been listening to them for seven years. I could not care less about Canadian Technology Man or Black Technology Man. Store dot Level1Techs.
TBH I’m not sure if a platform like YouTube will ever exist in a non-commercial way. Many creators that I follow reached a level of professionalism that comes with significant costs. You need expensive cameras, microphones, lights, high-end computers, drones, personnel costs for cutters and people that help with research. They have travel costs, sometimes rent for offices etc. All that just to produce the content.
On top, there are significant costs for hosting. I mean YouTube is hosted on multiple data centers rather than a bunch of servers or even home computers. Already Lemmy, which is mostly text and pictures, is a decent financial burden to instance owners. Not to mention the time for moderation and administration. And even here, in a place full of hardcore FOSS supporters, it’s not like admins are drowned in donations.
If YouTube ads and product placements are the only source of income for content creators, then the only alternative would be that consumers directly pay for the content and the platform. Or that such a platform would be paid by some state / taxes. Both of which don’t sound very realistic to me.
Not everybody needs that. You can still produce good content without spending thousands of dollars on all of that. In fact, swinging the level of professionalism too far can alienate an audience. It’s all about manufacturing authenticity.
I agree. PeerTube is neat, but I don’t think it’s there yet. Even with peer-to-peer options, it doesn’t really work when there are more video posters than viewers.
You mean Patreon? YouTube ads are no way to make a living, so Patreon has taken over as the revenue source for most creators. Eventually, they want more money and start taking product offers, trying to sell you G-Fuel or whatever disreputable product lands in their inbox.
All agreed. Some of my favorite content is very plain. Hickok45 has a couple of channels and zero frills. He just shoots guns and discusses the in and outs. He’s like your cool grandad. LOL, his new channel is just short videos of him sitting down and discussing various topics that are on his mind.
Paul Harrel (RIP) was more formal in his presentations, but much the same as to costs. Paul videos are a masterclass on how to present a subject without bias. He would tell you what he’s going to tell you, tell you, tell you what he told you, and at the end invite you to form your own opinion. You get spoiled watching his single-take shots and start finding other YouTubers, with their constant edits, annoying.
Peter Santenello looks to only spend money on gas and lodging while he cruises America with a selfie stick. Peter is highly recommended! You meet people you would never have met IRL and learn what life is like for them. He’s nearly without bias and asks tough questions at times. Only video I saw where he got a bit emotional was his trip to Kensington in Philly. He’s been to some hellaciously poor places in America but Kensington appalled him.
I read somewhere that AWS hosting would cost $2bn/year vs advertising revenue of 30bn/year
Is there a credible source for the costs of hosting? Wikipedia is listing similar ad revenues as you did but no info on the costs. YouTube has 2.7 billion users that watch in average around 11 hours of videos a month. If 2 billion USD/y would be sufficient to host all that that’d be just 0,74 USD/user*year or 0,06 USD per month. That sounds really cheap considering that you have to pay for storage, traffic, backups and redundancies (at least I never heard of significant outages or data loss on YT).
Does anyone have a credible source on the number of employees YouTube has? If you search for that you fine vastly different number from just 2k to 189k employees.
None of that bloat is necessary for engaging your audience, only for currying favour with the black-box algorithm. Level1
ShowNews is three people at a desk with an OBS setup and I’ve been listening to them for seven years. I could not care less about Canadian Technology Man or Black Technology Man. Store dot Level1Techs.