Hacker News Reader

Comment by mvdtnz | Hacker News Reader

With no end in sight to the increasing cost of storage I can't imagine a worse time to put the burden of video storage onto users.

Even forgetting that issue, the last thing I want is to use some unknown, unpredictably changing residential connection for my videos. Google has invested in a powerful edge network so they can server my videos lightning quick.

View on HN

At current prices, pledging $5 worth of storage while the app is installed is enough to cache 20 hours of video. It's not too bad.

> the last thing I want is to use some unknown, unpredictably changing residential connection for my videos

YouTube only buffers a handful of seconds. Let's say other users would only be used to buffer 30-60 seconds in the future and if it drops below 15 a fast server is used. Does that solve your worries?

No. I don't want to stream a video from some dude on a mobile connection heading into a train tunnel. There's simply no upside for me.

Can you give a reason you don't want data from that dude? Because the design I outlined can only make your buffer bigger, never smaller. The absolute worst case of phone guy dropping out still leaves you in the same place youtube puts you by default. So there's no downside.

As for upside, is fewer ads enough to tempt you? That's the easiest one to do if the fast servers need much less bandwidth.

The economy is collapsing, be patient. The administration has ended all of the main ways liquidity was created and now there's a liquidity crisis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com