• kakes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    Love how they make this sound like some incredible feat. When you aren’t bound to license agreements, turns out it’s actually very easy to have a “massive” content library. Literally the only hurdle is storage space.

    • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Yeah it costs, depending on quality of course.
      My 14 TB disks are filling up faster than I expected and I am not close to Netflix’s catalogue.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      I mean, distributing it isn’t a small feat. Plus you need to manage subscriptions, billings, CMS, a front end to navigate the content, etc.

      That’s no small amount of work, even if they used out of the box solutions for many layers.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        All of those things already exist. Typically it’s just a Plex server running on a cloud service.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        Both Wikipedia and Stack Overflow just have a few dozen fast servers despite being some of the world’s highest trafficked websites

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          The entire content of the wikipedia fits in a pen drive.

          Streaming video is a lot more expensive than text and images.