"Peer-to-peer just eats up your bandwidth, right, it's like the old technology."
This quote intrigues me the most. Is peer-to-peer really bad, and uses a lot of bandwidth, or is it just bad for Google?
This quote intrigues me the most. Is peer-to-peer really bad, and uses a lot of bandwidth, or is it just bad for Google?
I don't know exactly how much bandwidth Skype uses, but it has been the most reliable way of doing video-chats for me, even on the slow Internet connection I'm using.
If we take, for example, an application like Bitcoin, it uses a minimal amount of data transfer because all it's doing is coordinating transactions and mining.
If take a simple use case like P2P text chat, would the bandwidth costs be all that bad compared to a cloud or client-server model?
If it's all encrypted P2P and supernodes aren't centrally located but randomly distributed throughout the Skype-net.
They couldn't place ads without rewriting the P2P to have more intercept points.
If it is about money, then I think Chan's point does hold. Google would be buying a money losing venture that doesn't fit with their own monetization model and would take years to integrate if at all.