A comment from @disrooter from another thread;https://lemmy.ml/post/57418/comment/42932
"As someone who managed a PeerTube instance for a large YouTube channel I have to say the big problem is storage: how are you going to pay for storage that increases with each new video while the income is mostly the same? From a business point of view it’s a suicide.
Keep in mind content creators on YouTube produce many gigabytes/week. In a few years they would have to pay hundreds of dollars each week, even when they pause and not producing any new video, when they are getting less donations and so on.
Why should they invest so much money in a PeerTube instance? Only a premium pay-to-view service can justify it and you really need a high cost-to-produce-and-stream-the-video/minutes-of-video ratio to make it convenient, for example documentaries and not lazy records of hours of online debates." -end quote
This means that if avid content creators wants to host a peertube instance, they will be held back from doing it, because of how expensive it will be.
Just wanna talk about this issue, it deserves It’s own post. let me know what you think.
afaik Peertube also uses BitTorrent. anyone watching a video automatically downloads from and seeds to other people watching the same video. idk exactly how this would factor into the economics, but a high-traffic Peertube instance would definitely be cheaper than other video hosting softwarei seem to have misunderstood the post; i thought it was about bandwidththere is already unmetered bandwith VPS providers, so that isn’t really much of a problem in the first place. the bigger problem here is with hosting expenses for renting storage.
That’s great for bandwidth and makes you able to serve a decent stream with a basic server but the problem of storage remains. Other Fediverse services like Mastodon have not this issue because video files use much more storage.