A comment from @disrooter from another thread;https://lemmy.ml/post/57418/comment/42932
"As someone who managed a PeerTube instance for a large YouTube channel I have to say the big problem is storage: how are you going to pay for storage that increases with each new video while the income is mostly the same? From a business point of view it’s a suicide.
Keep in mind content creators on YouTube produce many gigabytes/week. In a few years they would have to pay hundreds of dollars each week, even when they pause and not producing any new video, when they are getting less donations and so on.
Why should they invest so much money in a PeerTube instance? Only a premium pay-to-view service can justify it and you really need a high cost-to-produce-and-stream-the-video/minutes-of-video ratio to make it convenient, for example documentaries and not lazy records of hours of online debates." -end quote
This means that if avid content creators wants to host a peertube instance, they will be held back from doing it, because of how expensive it will be.
Just wanna talk about this issue, it deserves It’s own post. let me know what you think.
I mean, this discussion is really kind of the centralized platform vs. self-hosted discussion.
And I don’t think there is a good answer. Self-hosting is expensive. But putting all of your eggs into one basket can also get really expensive, when Mr. Centralized Platform decides to kick you out. (Or lets some shitty bots and media corporations decide for them.)
Ultimately, most content creators will not suddenly migrate off of YouTube, but I don’t think that should be the goal.
To me, PeerTube would already be very successful when I can get enough video entertainment without needing to use YouTube, Twitch etc…
rather than migrating, I prefer to just incentivize content creators to also make their content available in the fediverse.