Google's cost is probably more on the distribution side of things ... but I only found a top level number not a break down of component costs. At any rate the point is to start exploring distributing costs associated with large scale video collaboration. In that way I target developing a framework where individual pieces can be done on the server or on clients depending on what is optimal. Its not that much extra effort to design things this way.
Look back 2 years and you can see the xiph communities blog posts and conversations with Mozilla. It was not a given that Firefox would ship with ogg theora baseline video support (they took some convening and had to do some thinking about it, a big site like wikipedia exclusively using the free formats technology probably helped their decision). Originally the xiph/annodex community built the liboggplay library as an extension. This later became the basis for the library that powers firefox ogg theora video today. Likewise we are putting features into firefogg that we eventually hope will be supported by browsers natively. Also in theory we could put a thin bittorrent client into java Cortado to support IE users as well.
peace, --michael
Tisza Gergő wrote:
Michael Dale <mdale <at> wikimedia.org> writes:
- We are not Google. Google lost what like ~470 million~ last year on
youtube ...(and that's with $240 million in advertising) so total cost of $711 million [1]
How much of that is related to transcoding, and how much to delivery? You seem to be conflating the two issues. We cannot do much to cut delivery costs, save for serving less movies to readers - distributed transcoding would actually raise them. (Peer-to-peer video distribution sounds like a cool feature, but it needs to be implemented by browser vendors, not Wikimedia.)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l