YouTube

>>61134013
Considering Google is as big a company as Amazon I'm sure they have enough SANs to cover the amount of videos uploaded

They developed a distributed storage protocol/system which allows consumer chrome instances to store small portions of the their total data load.
>he actually thought a web browser needed that much ram

>>61134032
yes but because of their size they can afford to be inefficient

I'm just wondering how costly it is for them to be hosting all this dead weight

I've read that the site won't be profitable for years to come

>>61134013
They suspend the videos in quantum storage. They only take up space when being accessed.

I think it loses jewgle money
which is great
I hope they lose it all

>>61134066
If they lose, we all lose

>>61134048
sauce? first I've heard about that

even so, I doubt that would make any considerable difference considering there are about 81 million videos on the site

>>61134013
>surely hosting all of these videos permanently is massively costly for them?
Fuck yeah, it is! They've been losing money since its inception.

That being said, it's one of Google's largest projects and "too big to fail" at this point.

>>61134060
You mean up their asses?

File: ai-kizuna-virtual-vlog.jpg (92KB, 1141x700px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1141x700px

>>61134013
They have Kizuna Ai. I went so far as to take ad.doubleclick out of my hosts file to click on her ads.

>>61134076
>They've been losing money since its inception.

From what I've read that's because most of the videos on the site can't have ads on them
I think OP's 10% figure is wrong, has to be less than that

>>61134060
where did you read that?
I thought quantam computing was still only theoretical

>>61134072
There's over a billion chrome user.

>>61134072
>first I've heard about that
Because it isn't true

>>61134124
yeah it does sound like horse shit

Anyone have any clue how much YouTube spends on storage?

>>61134072
>there are about 81 million videos on the site
What? It's billions

>>61134156
Yeah my bad, I didn't notice how old the article was

>>61134013
YouTube still has site ads. Ads can appear in the corner, or inside your homepage feed. Those ads don't pay the creators of the videos they're on, everything goes to YT.

....Did you just watch yesterdays Dude Soup?

>>61134013
Do you seriously think a huge ass company run by tons of intelligent people would just waste money for the keks?

Outside of ads, it seems like a great way to bind people into Googlel infrastructure and have years of video for their machine learning shit and customer analysing.

>other people I've talked to have said the storage costs would be insignificant though
Much smaller companies provide video storage and even have to deal with copyright shit, yet they are doing fine. Google is getting a much, much better deal on their servers.

>>61134184
so even if an unmonetizeable series of videos exist, YouTube is still making a profit out of the fact that : by watching those videos you're spending more time in the site that leads to you seeing more 'integrated' ads. And also makes it more likely for you to then move in to a different series of videos that have ads.

YouTube is in no way, shape or form running at a loss. Google would have pulled the plug on it a decade ago if that were the case.

>>61134224
YouTube has consistently been running at a loss?
What are you on about

>>61134236
What? I said its NOT running at a loss. Learn to read.

>>61134048
someone is watching too much sillicon valley

>>61134255
What you said was plain wrong
"There's no timetable for profitability" according to the CEO of YouTube

>>61134270
Care to elaborate?

>>61134055
the purge will probably be happening soon

>>61134066
spooky dubs in this thread

>>61134297
YouTube has never been profitable, you're the one declaring that it is despite people at YouTube saying it isnt

>>61134312
But you're looking at it from a pure monetary standpoint. The profit they make is in hooking consumers into their other services and hoarding up free fodder for machine learning. As we're slowly transitioning towards the 'Information Age', YouTube is simply investing early to become a superpower later.

>>61134358
yes but we weren't talking about that were we?

>YouTube is in no way, shape or form running at a loss. Google would have pulled the plug on it a decade ago if that were the case.

It is running at a loss

Whether or not they convert some YouTube users to other Google services isn't relevant to YouTube itself breaking even

isnt youtube operating at a massive fucking deficit?

im pretty sure they tried starting youtube red, youtube music and youtube tv to try and recoup those costs

File: 1484973422727.jpg (10KB, 319x370px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 319x370px

>Youtube
>efficiency
Pic one and only fucking one.

It is fucking MINDBLOWING how much spam there is on that site. Spam that isn't just a jpg like on other sites or some text flood, GIGABYTES OF VIDEO SPAM. And I'm not talking about the "Tyrone laughs for 24 hours". I'm talking about the literal shit tons of spam generated by bots and/or copies of popular videos also uploaded by bots.

They're incredibly anal about some user content but there's a lot of spam that is allowed to flood the site. They seem to do literally nothing against bots that even shit out whole accounts for each of their spam video or even put hundreds of spam videos into the hundreds of their accounts.

>>61134478
it is also a weird coincidence that there's still no official way to block channels from popping up in your searches or in your recommendations.
you actually have to use a script to block channels that annoy the fucking heck out of you.

really activates the almonds

>>61134013
where do they store all those drives? even half of that at low quality takes multiple drives.

>>61134070
True

>>61134478
>They seem to do literally nothing against bots that even shit out whole accounts for each of their spam video or even put hundreds of spam videos into the hundreds of their accounts.

Probably costs more to detect spam videos than to actually store the videos. Spam videos (unless its copyright infringement) literally bothers no one.

File: 14936143745253.jpg (336KB, 1054x837px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1054x837px

>>61134548
>literally bothers no one.

It does, when dozens of copybots reupload YOUR shit, rake in literally millions of clicks and therefore ad-revenue and you get nothing of that.

Even if you're not after the money there's something wrong with you if you don't care that freeloaders get rich with things you created.

File: 1495730398557.jpg (75KB, 750x728px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 750x728px

>>61134650
lmao, happened to me
>upload silly video of my dog, sneaking into a hoodie with his nose poking out of a sleeve
>some idiot re-uploaded it
>my video had 650 views
>his copy got way over 1.2 million views

>mfw he might have earned $1000 with my shit

File: 1492132092821.png (97KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 420x420px

>>61134650
>>61134695
Information wants to be free.

>>61134748
t. faggot who makes ad revenue with stolen content