Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by gchamonlive | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

gchamonlive

Let me have a copy locally, then you don't have to stream it to me every time.

This is basically a scaling issue streaming platforms and publishers created themselves because of copyright.

It makes their product expensive, bloated, clunky and make pirated content much more convenient.

There are no excuses. Games are exactly like that. They just have to do better.

View on HN

"let me have a copy locally" is a very naive view of the world. 1. netflix works also in places with horrible connections/terrible bandwidth 2. what would you do? preemptively download all the series, movies etc that they think you'll download? (that may work in places with good internet, but even there, how much disk space would you need like on a mobile device?) 3. most behaviour on netflix is "let's try to click on these random series/movies and see if i like it" so you'd be downloading things that you'll never come back to see.

I am not sure i understand your point...plus netflix has the HUGE problem of optimizing the stream as much as possible to give people fluidity in their experience (exactly for the - low bandwidth - connections)

My point is that many of the engineering challenges come from self inflicted wounds that could be overcome with more flexibility.

Giving the user a choice to pay less and run their own binary of netflix would solve most of those issues

1. Shitty connection: no problem, just wait for the movie to load.

2. Preemptive download: on demand pre-load

3. Stream optimization: would be solved by local caching and P2P offload

4. Mobile devices: either caching there (already a feature) or NAT punchthrough, accessing movies you already preloaded in your home infrastructure

5. Naive view of the world: I think many things we do nowadays would be considered naive. What, a computer the size of a chocolate bar in the hand of everyone? This just shuts the discussion off of new ways of thinking. My idea could be technically bad, but "naive" is just a way of saying "out of the common discourse".

"Giving the user a choice to pay less and run their own binary of netflix would solve most of those issues" why? netflix works well for what they want and how they want it to work. you can download things to watch offline already and the rest would benefit just a small percentage ot the world, which already has money to pay for the service. I agree that p2p would be a great solution to networking issues, but am not sure about the legal/technical consequences (again) worldwide.

Doesnt change the required infrasctructure. On Stranger Things premiere day you still have to have the download infrastructure to handle hundreds of millions of downloads simultanesouly.

Not necessarily, you need one download then theoretically torrents will do the rest. People don’t download directly from Netflix.

Just to add to it, torrent isn't piracy technology, it is just a sharing protocol. Netflix could very well leverage that to lighten distribution load. Didn't think of that, nice catch.

It's actually pretty wasteful that it doesn't work that way.

Im pretty sure that would be illegal, but even if not there would be such pushback at using customers own bandwidth to distribute their own content.

World of Warcraft was distributing updates as torrents 20 years ago. It was fine.

Netflix for instance running their own tracker, then clearly advertising an advanced tier with lower pricing, with good documentation on how to set up, is just enough

You cant simply start using your customers bandwidth to distribute your own content.

Who said Netflix was offering the torrent?

just throw it in the TOS >:^)

It shifts the transcoding load to the user and it loads the movie async so you don't need the full bandwidth, so of course it changes the required infrastructure needs.

If I understand correctly streaming seervices dont transcode. They hold different versions of the same media to directly play the sppuroted version to the client

> They hold different versions of the same media to directly play the sppuroted version to the client

those different versions are transcoded from a mezzanine source, by a massive system, which is the subject of the OP. you can't just write off the main task from the discussion

The 4K mezzanine source will typically be very high bitrate, perhaps 1 TB or more. So big that it cannot be repeatedly “distributed to clients for transcoding”.

So I’m going to download everything I might want to watch like it’s 2005 and I just got the first video iPod?

Do I download everything to my computer, iPhone, iPad, and multiple AppleTVs in case I want to start watching a TV series one place and finish watching some place else?

BTW, of course you can download video to mobile devices

Saying 2005 like it was a bad thing to own the stuff you had. I would much rather have it "the old way" instead of having my series be delisted from the streaming service mid season.

Just make a paid local tier, cheaper, but you need to load it and transcode it locally. Give the user a choice.

Unlike music, which was DRM free and could legally be ripped from a CD using iTunes. There was no easy legal solution for Apple to ship software that could rip DVDs. When the iPod with video came out, iTunes also started selling movies. The next year Apple introduced movie rentals .

Are you really suggesting that it would be a good mainstream product to offer video downloads - in 2024 - where people used a computer to download movies to a computer and then upload them to all of their devices? How then do they watch on their TV with the built in apps?

They setup their own Plex server? When I want to binge 30 seasons of South Park - some on my TV, some on my phone, some on my iPad, do I copy it to all three places?

What keeps track of what I watch and don’t watch?

In the apple ecosystem analogy, you would just need a time capsule-like device (or any server for that matter). A single copy would suffice. Locally, you stream as is, since wifi is more than enough for 4k content. On the go, after connecting to your server, if upload isn't enough, the server could transcode the movie scaling it down. Perfectly doable without having to have a copy in each device.

> Are you really suggesting that it would be a good mainstream product to offer video downloads - in 2024 - where people used a computer to download movies to a computer and then upload them to all of their devices?

If it was the sole offer, I think it would be too restrictive, but as a lower or cheaper/advanced tier, why not?

I had a Plex server setup that could do that. It was an old spare computer. iTunes can (could?) do that over a lan. That’s how the very first hard drive AppleTV worked.

It was a pain to maintain and had symmetrical gigabit internet. Most people have cable internet with very low upstream bandwidth.

But now you’re asking them to buy another device and what’s the benefit for them?

In today’s world, I would buy an Nvidia Shield that can do hardware transcoding.

But you can already download video to mobile devices ahead of time.

> Let me have a copy locally, then you don't have to stream it to me every time.

Venting? Local copy would not give you anywhere (mobile/pc/tablet etc) access to their content. Imagine having to carry 20 discs (just 20, not saying 100+ yet) with you everywhere. In case, if you plan to say - 'I don't need mobile access or 20+ discs' - they aren't going to customize their offering just for you or a few users. A USB will not work with mobile devices.

I have Plex with transcoded dvds locally that I can access anywhere with tailscale.

Streaming service just need a relay bastion to punch through NAT for the initial handshake. You just need a server running some kind of client in your own infrastructure.

You can download to you mobile device already

That would raise the price for storage

Reply on news.ycombinator.com