• sigezayaq@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s not about your bandwidth, it’s about YouTube’s bandwidth. You probably don’t care, but for them it adds up to a lot

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I just showed how inexpensive it has become.

      Do you think I think I’m youtube??

      • pool_spray_098@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You showed your home bandwidth. It means absolutely nothing in this discussion.

        How often do people watch the first few seconds of a video and not finish it? It happens a lot. It probably happens a lot more often than that user actually finishing it. We could be talking about doubling Google’s bandwidth requirement. Not to mention server CPU time, disk I/O. Do you have any idea how expensive the operational costs of YouTube probably are as it is? This is an efficiency game to successfully run a video platform which supports up to high bitrate 4k video at this unfathomable scale, servicing the entire planet.

        It makes the most efficient sense for them to only let you buffer a little bit at a time, not more than you need.

        I’m not kissing Google’s ass. I’m just pointing out that if you want the service to exist, it has to be designed as efficiently as possible, otherwise it won’t exist for long.