You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
20 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I just showed how inexpensive it has become.

Do you think I think I’m youtube??

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Man ive got like 8 tabs right now with paused videos cause I cant focus on shit

permalink
report
parent
reply

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.2K

    Posts

  • 33K

    Comments