Hacker News Reader

Comment by sofaofthedamned | Hacker News Reader

Facebook or Amazon may have a say in that, a lot of those 1 in 4 bytes are video from Youtube.

That said, those bytes still need to be delivered, Google really don't have peers in this stuff, apart from maybe Facebook.

View on HN

YouTube doubled in hours of video watched last year going from 500m to 1 billion hours daily. FB total video is 100m hours. So Google added 5x FB total. Netflix was about 128 million hours daily.

So Google should get to 1 out of 3 pretty quickly.

Youtube has some really good content creators, and apparently they are getting paid. I've actually subscribed to a few channels finally that I look forward to seeing new releases in (CGP Grey, YSAC).

My 7yo son is obsessed with the whole Let's Play phenomenon, and other associated minecraft content. I've looked up some of these people on Social Blade[1][2], and some of these people are likely making millions, but I can't fault the system. While the content of some isn't exceptional, it is professional, and some of these people keep up that pace for multiple content releases each day.

1: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/thediamondminecart

2: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/matthiasiam

Content creators are mastering chopping up content into separate videos with enough continuity and hooks to keep people clicking next video, next video, next video...

It's quite scary actually what the current and future generations are being conditioned to do.

Have you heard of soap operas?

I agree the parent poster was being dramatic. Soap operas, however, make you wait until the following day to see what happened.

How is this different to a YouTuber? They (at least the ones I have seen) release their Videos daily (or less often) as well and sometimes with different Content on different days. So you might even have to wait 2 Days or even a week to get the new episode of the Series you where watching.

It's true that you can binge on a series if you are new to the series (youtube or otherwise) but if you are up to date that is no longer the case.

That's a good point. I find that there is an almost limitless supply of entertainment online these days, as opposed to 5 channels and 6 Disney VHS tapes in my youth.

I don't think I could have resisted the compulsion to be on YouTube for all of my free time. I am lucky that there is a ton of social pressure on me to spend my time doing other activities.

It could be a personal problem, unique to me and a small amount of other people.

netflix last year was reported at 37% in NA, so I suspect it will continue to be a contender as it gets more traction globally.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-...

'peak download internet traffic' whatever that means.

Good point. I'd be more interested in connection stats than bandwidth, that would far more fun to read.

Traffic during peak hours. Peak demand is what really matters for infrastructure.

Need to be able to store datafiles as youtube videos... e.g. ISO images in youtube vids... allowing for a view of a youtube vid to stream a download where, should everything be prioritized for vides/and youtube-google enuring play... that file transfers can be massive and fast even if neutrality BS occurs.

At least for Google Photos, they don't usually give you the exact same bytes back. (At a very basic level, that protects against some attacks and also against your scheme.)

Of course, you could add enough coding theory to make it work.

The content may be Netflix, but it's delivered over CDNs, and much of that infrastructure isn't operated by Netflix. That's what the "originate" in the original statement is likely implying. Content ownership and access vs content delivery at a network level.

We (netflix) operate our own CDN. See https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/

Yes, but my understanding is that quite a bit of it is still served through partner CDN services, is it not? I was aware that Netflix served at least some of the content themselves (and growing, I assume), so was attempting to imply that the 37% noted for content access for Netflix may not equate exactly to 37% network delivery for Netflix, as they measure different things. I didn't mean to imply none of that should be attributed to Netflix's own network.

No, we serve 100% of video traffic from our CDN.

Ah, that seems to be fairly new. I found info that it was over 90% a little over a year ago[1], but I wasn't aware it was that high at that time either. Congratulations on getting everything self served!

1: https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/how-netflix-works-...

We've been 100% for video since before I joined over 2 years ago.

I think you misread that article with the 90%. That is talking about the proximity of Open Connect CDN nodes to customers, and how much traffic is served from "directly connected" Open Connect CDN nodes, and how much traffic is ... less than directly connected OpenConnect CDN nodes.. (sorry, I'm a kernel guy, not really versed in WAN stuff).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com