
DIY Video Hosting - chmaynard
https://tyler.io/diy-video-hosting/
======
tfe
I’d like to point out that this still has deficiencies compared to Vimeo or
YouTube, who transcode the source file into multiple bitrates and adaptively
serve an appropriate quality based on the viewer’s available bandwidth and
screen size.

This manifests as buffering on slower connections, where YouTube or Vimeo
would just downgrade the user to a lower bitrate transparently (or nearly
transparently).

An end user today will expect that behavior and have very little tolerance for
buffering if their connection is unable to smoothly play the one bitrate the
creator published (no matter how fast the CDN is).

Edit: I’m aware that it’s possible to do adaptive bitrate streaming outside of
using Vimeo or YouTube (as several commenters have explained below) however
this isn’t what TFA describes and I think it’s important to note this
deficiency in the author’s described approach to serving their own video.

~~~
guu
If you want this functionality you can encode the video into chunks at
multiple quality levels using video2hls[0] and host them anywhere you like[1].

[0]:
[https://github.com/vincentbernat/video2hls](https://github.com/vincentbernat/video2hls)

[1]: [https://ryanparman.com/posts/2018/serving-bandwidth-
friendly...](https://ryanparman.com/posts/2018/serving-bandwidth-friendly-
video-with-hls/)

~~~
simlevesque
HLS is half of the answer, that will only work of half of all devices. You
need HLS + MPEG-DASH.

~~~
guu
For browsers that do not support HLS you can use a JavaScript HLS client
implementation[0] using Media Source Extensions[1].

[0]: [https://github.com/video-dev/hls.js/](https://github.com/video-
dev/hls.js/)

[1]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/API/Media_Sourc...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/API/Media_Source_Extensions_API)

~~~
simlevesque
Isn't this super battery intensive?

------
deanclatworthy
I don't get it. You can unlist your video on youtube, disable the comments,
disable related videos etc. and that solves every problem the author talks
about. You can even disable monetisation so a user will never see an ad.

You can also go one step further and deliver youtube video through an entirely
custom player: [https://github.com/videojs/videojs-
youtube](https://github.com/videojs/videojs-youtube)

~~~
slezyr
You can try, until they'll block you for not having the ads as they did with
the blender channel.

[https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-
blende...](https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-
videos-worldwide/)

~~~
HALtheWise
After reading the article, it seems inaccurate to summarize it how you did. In
particular, all the videos are now back up, and the Blender channel still does
not have ads.

~~~
ficklepickle
Only because of public outrage. If it was just some guy, that probably
wouldn't have been reversed.

~~~
lowwave
By using any google = ads.

------
gingerlime
We were on the Vimeo business plan, which was supposedly unlimited. Until you
hit a certain threshold... we run a fairly popular education site with lots of
videos and reached that cap. Our bills went up 10x or so.

For our business I guess it’s still worth paying, but worth being aware that
not all unlimited is really so.

~~~
lalo2302
You can checkout mux.com. Idk about if the pricing would be cheaper or
expensive. But a regular develop should be able to integrate them fair easily.

~~~
nickjj
One nice feature of Vimeo is you can prevent a video from being accessible
(streamed, embedded, etc.) on anything but a list of domains of your choosing.

Mux doesn't have this feature (yet). The best you could do is sign every video
and have it expire after X time. This can get quite complicated and is less
secure since it's only restricted by time (IP address isn't an option either),
but due to the nature of how it works, you need to make the video accessible
for a bit longer than the duration of it.

If Mux were to add domain restricted security features, I think I would switch
to them because having the option of using a custom player is nice for niche
content.

~~~
gingerlime
Mux and cloudflare stream are on my list of potential alternatives. We do use
this domain restriction of Vimeo. It’s not fullproof but definitely stops
casual downloads.

~~~
nickjj
What can you do to bypass their domain restrictions, besides things like
recording your screen during playback and distributing a separate video.

~~~
gingerlime
I haven't tried it, but I think youtube-dl can bypass it

[https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/10541](https://github.com/ytdl-
org/youtube-dl/issues/10541)

Our own videos have been pirated already and are shared around some torrents
sites and on telegram, and there's nothing we can do besides plead to people's
sense of moral duty. We're not a huge Hollywood studio or a megacorp. We're
just a small bootstrapped company and producing our videos is the most
expensive and time-consuming part of our platform. Luckily we still offer some
added value besides videos, and make it easy to "do the right thing" and pay a
subscription. Yet, we just have to live with piracy I guess. Vimeo didn't
prevent it, although perhaps made it only slightly harder.

~~~
nickjj
Hmm.

It looks like the "hack" is to only set the referrer header of the request to
be the domain that's whitelisted which can be done with any HTTP client, but
the issue is also 4 years old. I wonder if that's been addressed because the
referrer header is really not something you can trust from the client.

I wonder if this also means if you use browser extensions that focus on
security (such as randomizing your user agent and deleting the referrer
header) that those folks wouldn't be able to even watch the videos.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention because if domain restriction does
indeed still work like this then I don't think I will use Vimeo for that
feature alone.

Signed URLs with both time and IP address based restrictions would be ideal. I
wonder if IP address based restrictions is something Mux has planned.

~~~
gingerlime
Yes, we come across some people with privacy browser extensions that remove
the referrer and indeed this is causing playback issues for them.

It's still a fairly effective protection for casual copying or link sharing,
but of course it's easy to circumvent. Even DRM gets broken all the time, so
it seems like a bit of a futile effort to try to prevent it completely.

------
dannyw
I use a $20/month VPS with unlimited, unmetered 10gbit bandwidth (no, I do not
use outrageously priced "public clouds").

I have no troubles serving 4K video (with a 720p low-bitrate transcode) with a
simple <video> tag, and I do not pay for bandwidth. This month, I've egressed
11TB for $20, and I could easily triple that at no additional cost.

I can stream 4K without buffering fine and I've never had a user complain, so
it works.

~~~
gravypod
The benifit of a cloud/managed cdn is in it's availability, latency, and
peering agreements.

Your vps is perfectly fine so long as you're not serving traffic in China,
India, etc. If you need to push data globally, need to handle very peaky
traffic above the throughput of one machine, or need to have 99.9999% uptime,
a cdn will look attractive.

~~~
ethanwillis
Outsourcing your infrastructure to others is an existential risk. CDNs and
such don't look so good to a lot of people because there's something to be
said about the nature and value of doing it yourself. The nature being that no
one cares about _you_ more than _you_

An analog for me is car repair. I could take my car in to get oil changes,
have brakes serviced, etc. etc. Disregarding the money I save the reason I
don't use those services is because those technicians and companies do not
care about the quality of their work on my property as much as I do.

As an example, I was feeling too lazy to do a radiator replacement myself and
so I took it to a big shop. Terrible mistake, when I got the car back they'd
unplugged some of the sparkplug wires and forgot to plug one back in. There's
no way they didn't notice the rough idling when moving it out of the bay. Even
worse they wanted to say nothing was wrong until I had them pop the hood and
pointed out the spark plug boot just sitting there.

Edit: To expand on this, the answer isn't buy a CDN solution. The answer is
make CDN solutions so easy to implement that anyone can setup their own with
their own hardware hosted in colos around the world.

~~~
ponker
Outsourcing your infrastructure to others is an existential risk, no doubt,
but virtually all of us do it in our personal lives -- we trust that
electricity will be delivered to the plug and water to the faucet, and would
die off in quite short order if it did not.

Building your own infrastructure is like living "off the grid" with a wind
turbine and a well and a composting toilet. You might have mitigated some
risks but let's not pretend that there isn't an enormous cost in doing so.

~~~
ghaff
>Building your own infrastructure is like living "off the grid" with a wind
turbine and a well and a composting toilet.

And your infrastructure still isn't really literally "off the grid" of course.
It's dependent on colos, network providers, etc. Sure, there's far, far less
of a single point of failure than using YouTube but you're always going to be
dependent on others to some degree.

Further, _no one_ has the time or the money to do everything ourselves. To the
upstream comment, I have neither the time or the energy to take on car
maintenance. I have other things to do even if it means I spend more money and
sometimes the shop doesn't do an optimum job. I'm not going to criticize
someone who wants to do things themselves, but you have to choose.

------
varbhat
First of all,you can use HTML video element and host the video yourself. (This
works in non-js browsers too. You can enhance it by video js scripts though
for js enabled browsers.).

I think that peertube will be another good option. You can self host it and
there are also many available public instances of it. This is particularly
useful if your userbase is very large because it uses Bittorrent(webtorrent)
p2p to reduce load on servers and it increases availability of content if
viewerbase is huge.

~~~
INTPenis
I strongly believe in Peertube for media creators who want to take control
back from Youtube.

Regarding the seeding I was thinking that you could put a few dollars into
seed boxes to bolster some older or rarely watched videos.

~~~
anaganisk
An avg video creator wants the money, not control. Its the reason why youtube
is so hot right now. Avg user just doesn't care.

~~~
INTPenis
Well you can't be average to run a good peertube instance. I was thinking more
of people like Joe Rogan and Linus Tech Tips. People who've built a company
around their content creation hobby and are capable of paying for ops and
potentially seed boxes if needed.

It wouldn't be hard to host, but you'd have to be confident in your service
provider or consultant.

Of course I doubt Linus would ever be censored by Youtube, he was just an
example.

------
pteraspidomorph
Every time I access Vimeo, with no exceptions, I'm forced to solve a recaptcha
v2, then expected to wait for longer than 30 seconds before being allowed in.

Result: I don't use Vimeo.

Any alternative is better.

I don't have this problem with any other website (that I have noticed),
including any video and streaming services.

~~~
nickjj
Do you get this on sites that use Vimeo to embed videos?

I'd be curious if you get a captcha here:
[https://laracasts.com/series/laravel-6-from-
scratch/episodes...](https://laracasts.com/series/laravel-6-from-
scratch/episodes/1)

~~~
celsoazevedo
Not OP, but yes, I do get a captcha:
[https://i.imgur.com/Paocsee.png](https://i.imgur.com/Paocsee.png)

I'm using a VPN, maybe that's why. It's annoying as not only you need to fill
the captcha, but it takes 30s to 1 minute for the video to load.

~~~
nickjj
Ah, using a VPN seems like it would likely be the culprit for 30+ second load
times.

What happens if you don't use that VPN?

~~~
celsoazevedo
It works without the VPN, but I need the VPN more than I need Vimeo, so I just
avoid anything that uses their service to host videos.

They seem to be very aggressive blocking IPs. For example, I have VPS on
Digital Ocean which I use for small projects and also as a VPN server. The IP
has been "mine" for almost a year, I don't use it to scrap sites or abuse any
service... but I still get the damn captcha on their videos.

~~~
edgartaor
That's why. Many providers can detect a VPN hosted on DigitalOcean and trigger
security measures or captchas. I'm testing a commercial vpn (Mullvad) this
month and it's working fine.

------
huslage
This is a nice write up, but don't forget that YouTube isn't just about
hosting. It's about distribution. If you host your own videos, you are 100%
relying on your own means of getting people to watch it. In the use-case that
is state here, that's probably just what the author ordered. But not everyone
has that luxury.

------
nix23
One project comes to my mind:

[https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube](https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube)

it uses web-torrent so you safe allot of bandwidth.

~~~
chrismorgan
Does anyone have a source for the claim that it saves a lot of bandwidth,
actual figures? The only PeerTube videos I’ve ever looked at are saving
absolutely nothing, because it’s only the original server seeding it.
Admittedly they haven’t been hot-off-the-press videos that are getting a large
number of views immediately, which is the main time when you may have more
seeders, as I understand it.

~~~
ravenstine
It's probably less about having peers seed videos all the time but buffering
bandwidth spikes.

Let's say a video gets posted and gets a million views in the first day.
That's a lot of load on a server. But if thousands of peers can serve each
other the chunks, then the server isn't responsible for all of them.

So WebTorrent can provide a level of scalability without greater hardware.
Just doesn't mean that most of the videos are going to be served by peers.

------
unicornporn
Why are people overcomplicating web video so much?

With the HTML5 video tag it's not much more complicated than serving an an
<img>. You still "need" two formats, I know that sucks (but av1 will hopefully
become the solution). A small to medium sized blog can just upload the files
to shared hosting (or even archive.org if space is sparse). No JS, no CDN
needed.

~~~
GeneticGenesis
Great question, it's actually not quite that simple. HTML5 was indeed supposed
to bring trivial video to the browser, and it almost did.

If you want a good video streaming experience for all your viewers, you need
something called Adaptive Bitrate (ABR). Some protocols that you may have
heard of the implement ABR include HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) and MPEG Dynamic
Adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH).

ABR allows the stream to adapt to the bandwidth capabilities of the viewer. If
you don't do this, some users will experience buffering, and some will have to
sacrifice on quality.

Unfortunately most browsers don't support an ABR format natively, so you need
to use Media Source Extensions, and a more complex player to support these
protocols in a browser.

~~~
pas
What's wrong with buffering? Just let the client download it in full, provide
a progress bar, and then allow it to watch/enjoy.

Obviously it's not going to be YouTube/Netflix-level anyhow.

~~~
chrisandchris
So you would like to watch that 30min 4K video on slow 2G, which then will
(probably) download for 3000 hours before you can watch...

Or you will just get a lower resolution and you can start watching in an
instant.

~~~
emilfihlman
So you'd much rather watch absolute shit for 30minutes?

Yeah that's a hard no.

~~~
chrisandchris
I agree with you - partly. It's either "watch nothing" or "watch not in 4K".

Not everybody in this world has such a good internet connection. There are
still enough people that would be happy to even have internet...

------
surround
If you’re willing to publish your video under a free license, you can upload
it to the Internet Archive and embed it on your website.

[https://archive.org/help/video.php](https://archive.org/help/video.php)

------
PetitPrince
My usecase involves sharing private video with access control for my sports
club. For that I use [https://mux.com/](https://mux.com/) which take care of
hosting, CDN and all the conversion shenanigans. On top of that I've build a
Django app which uses video.js as a player.

~~~
emmanueloga_
Prices appear to be a bit steep, no? What's your experience?

[https://mux.com/pricing](https://mux.com/pricing)

~~~
mkl
It's comparable to Cloudflare Stream:
[https://www.cloudflare.com/products/cloudflare-
stream/](https://www.cloudflare.com/products/cloudflare-stream/)

Streaming is more, storage is less.

------
unnouinceput
Quote:"So that's how I moved off Vimeo and started hosting my video content
myself"

No, no and no. You still don't host your video content yourself. You simply
found another cheaper service and despite your claim this isn't some paid ad
(quote: "This really isn't any sort of paid or sponsored content crap for
Bunny."), it's exactly that.

~~~
jedimastert
(separate comment for separate discussion)

> despite your claim this isn't some paid ad (quote: "This really isn't any
> sort of paid or sponsored content crap for Bunny."), it's exactly that.

I don't understand this comment. Do you have some sort of proof that the CDN
reached out to the author, or even knows he exists outside of a CMS?

I've seen this sentimentality a lot, where people aren't allowed to talk about
a service or a product positively without some sort of money being involved or
sneaky guy-in-a-trenchcoat bs. I really don't understand it.

------
bhhaskin
Can you still say that you are hosting the content yourself if the content is
still on a 3rd party CDN? I guess that is just semantics. Great article none
the less!

~~~
celsoazevedo
> [...] I still store my large app downloads and videos on S3 and then have
> Bunny (and previously MaxCDN) pull from AWS as an origin server. [...]

He hosts the videos on S3, the CDN fetches the files from S3 and caches it.
He's using the CDN for the cheap traffic/more pops. This would work without S3
and without a CDN too.

------
oceankid
+1 with author on BunnyCDN. Low latency, good value and great support!

I'd pay them more if they handled adaptive bitrate automatically.

~~~
Infiltrator
I couldn't agree more. BunnyCDN is founded and managed by some of the most
passionate and caring people I've had the pleasure of interacting with.

I would recommend BunnyCDN every time without hesitation.

------
speedgoose
I didn't know that HandBrake also supported command line. It's much easier to
use than ffmpeg directly.

------
the-dude
To everybody claiming a <video> should be enough for everybody : are you
really sure?

Because I distinctly remember random iOS devices would not play certain files
or fail to sync.

This is why you use YT or Vimeo and the like.

~~~
celsoazevedo
It won't work on all devices, but a h264 video encoded with the baseline
profile should play fine on any phone or tablet sold in the past 5 years
(maybe even older). On desktop, assuming the browser supports HTML5, it should
be fine too.

Just to be sure, offer at least one version of the video with VP8 just to
cover weird cases where h264 isn't supported. You can also encode 480p, 720p,
and 1080p versions for users on slow connections.

Now, will it load on the original iPhone or IE 6? Maybe not - they'll see a
link to the video file instead of a player - but not everyone needs to support
legacy devices and browsers.

YouTube, Vimeo, and other similar services are nice because they handle
everything for you, but sometimes they become too expensive or are blocked.
Depending on the type of user you have, <video> with a h264 video is cheaper
and works well enough.

~~~
jahewson
Unfortunately Chromium on Linux (and for those who have desktop apps -
Electron on all platforms) doesn’t support h264. Chrome does.

~~~
celsoazevedo
Mozilla recommends[0] WebM (VP8 and Opus) and MP4 (h264 and AAC) for good
compatibility. That's why I suggested suggested having a VP8 version of the
video for cases like this.

I guess OGV could be used for even better support, but it doesn't compress as
well.

[0] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/Media/Formats/V...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/Media/Formats/Video_codecs#Choosing_a_video_codec)

------
kristopolous
I've been thinking about a "meta cloud" stack - essentially something with the
convenient interfaces of various common SAS but then backed up by a user
configurable transport.

So you could "migrate" existing apps to say, use some machine at a colo
instead of a variety of s3 services without much effort and thus unshackle
yourself from a vendor.

Maybe _you_ are making gobs of money and don't care, but a lot of people
aren't and saving, say, a few hundred a year sounds very tempting. Not every
competent person is rich

~~~
Lammy
It’s called OpenStack :)

[https://object-storage-ca-
ymq-1.vexxhost.net/swift/v1/6e4619...](https://object-storage-ca-
ymq-1.vexxhost.net/swift/v1/6e4619c416ff4bd19e1c087f27a43eea/www-assets-
prod/openstack-map/openstack-map-v20191001.pdf)

~~~
kristopolous
What is all of this technical jargon? This is not the solution at all.

If it's equally hard and an equivalent amount of effort than starting from
scratch then it's completely a non solution. It's just another giant mountain
to climb.

I'm looking more into it. It looks very complex and sophisticated. It's also
built on a cloud "marketplace" where you're still doing SAS, now just in a way
more complicated way with some wonky exchange system like you're a municipal
energy broker.

Apparently they even sell multi-tier training sessions to understand all the
jargon and complexities. There's no pretense that it takes anything less than
months or years of study to use the thing

No, this is not it at all.

I'm talking about a worry free, drop in, simple replacement, an hour max. Set
it, forget it, walk away. Not a multi year career path.

~~~
Lammy
It turns out infrastructure is hard. Who knew?

~~~
kristopolous
Unnecessarily so for most problems.

I swapped out s3 with simply doing scp and holding the same interface. It
worked fine.

Does it scale to a 100 million users? No of course not. The point isn't to
provide giant scale solutions over multiple continents but something to
replace a ~$20/month service that a few hundred people use and make it
effectively $0.

There's a huge market for that and it's the vast majority of cloud software
written.

People will defend these complexities as The Right and Proper Way except it
isn't. I've built half a dozen companies for people using $10-$40/month VPSs
that do 6-7 digit annual revenue and run for years. All this autoscaling
kubernetes prometheus blah blah blah, totally unnecessary. We aren't serving
terabytes per second of video here... Transactional RDBMS, a Crud interface,
basic file store, done and done.

The problem is all these systems are designed to facilitate building the next
Paris or Hong Kong and if you're just trying to build the equivalent to a
store on the side of the road, you have to do it the Paris way. It's nonsense.

People have other things to do with their lives than spend vast amount of time
keeping up with the latest versions of irrelevant stuff to solve problems they
will never have.

------
alecco
Imagine if HTTP was truly distributed and servers from different organizations
could pool their bandwidth to serve static content. Similar to Bit Torrent.

------
yingw787
CDNs are the best thing since sliced bread. Found this out both from ease of
setting up frontends and the pain of setting up backends.

I wonder if there's a way to build a database on top of a CDN, or a webapp
backend (might just be something like serverless, but instead of function
definitions you have files+config a CDN automatically knows how to run).
Something like Plan9 for the web.

------
talkingtab
This is very helpful for anyone trying to understand how to avoid using
YouTube or Vimeo. Many people find those choices fine, but many of us find
them unacceptable for a variety of reasons.

While the author's answer may not be perfect or precisely tailored to your
situation, they cover all the bases IMHO. A must read.

And several of the comments add to the discussion.

[edit: ufind -> us find]

------
t0mas88
If the author is concerned about bandwidth costs, it sounds counterproductive
to encode the videos as 60fps where 30 is plenty for everything but high speed
action shots. Given that it sounds like he is doing demo videos / screencasts
etc, it there is a lot to gain here in just getting the encoding settings
right.

~~~
abdusco
Compression rate would be quite high for a mostly static video where nothing
much changes from frame to frame, regardless of framerate.

------
wortelefant
The best homegrown platform I have seen so far is
[https://media.ccc.de/](https://media.ccc.de/) , where the video and audio
files from Chaos Computer Club events are stored. I don't know how willing
they are to share the code though.

~~~
detaro
its on Github:
[https://github.com/voc/voctoweb](https://github.com/voc/voctoweb)

------
hellofunk
This is interesting but I’d have to assume that the actual cost Vimeo is
charging is not an important factor here. The developer time spent setting
this up would quickly exceed the annual fee for Vimeo in just an afternoon.
That excludes the ongoing maintenance and inevitable edge cases you would
encounter over time. Still fun, but I don’t think Vimeo’s price justifies this
effort alone.

~~~
simongr3dal
time=money assumes you are taking time away from something else, if there is
no other work to be done that generates money then spending some time to save
a little money might be a valuable way to spend time.

Most likely it's just to satisfy some sort of nerd-ocd.

~~~
nkozyra
Opportunity cost definitely falls in the "something else" range.

On the other hand, there is a ROI on building things either way. Always tough
to measure

------
ffritz
Does anyone know if Cloudflare is cool with audio files? I know they don’t
want you to serve video.

Or any similar fast CDNs allowing for audio files.

~~~
chmod775
I think they just don't want you to serve _large_ stuff, because their CDN
isn't optimized for that.

I serve all kinds of files <10mb via CF, that includes audio, video, images
etc.

Files over >10mb I handle myself. Around 100TB is handled by CF each month and
around 700TB by my own servers (4 Hetzner dedicated servers).

The whole setup costs me around 300 euros/month paid to Hetzner, and 20 to CF.
That means I pay around 40 cents / TB.

So far CF hasn't complained, and I've been using them for years. Though they
try to pitch me their higher priced plans now and then.

~~~
salex89
I've never used Cloudflare, so I got to ask, do they prohibit serving large
files or discourage by some quota?

~~~
0xbkt
They suspend accounts (after months if not immediately) that abuse serving
disproportionate amount of non-HTML content, videos specifically. However
there is still ambiguity (or lack of detail) in their terms if you can use
their Workers, a paid FaaS, to stream blob data.

~~~
poxrud
I thought this only applies to their free accounts, and that they have no
issues with serving any size files as long as you pay them.

------
calvinmorrison
for non commercial use I have used github to host my website for a long time,
and I have had some instructional videos on there. For small purposes like
this, or maybe how-tos on open source software, I can't see github having a
problem with or noticing the bandwidth

------
torresjrjr
PeerTube is an easy solution to video hosting and comes with many features.

[https://JoinPeerTube.org](https://JoinPeerTube.org)

------
k__
Half-OT: any good solutions for DIY audio streaming?

While I bought radio streaming licences in the past, my streams always got
shut down on platforms like YouTube.

~~~
m01
icecast has been around for a long time, would that serve your needs?

------
ex3ndr
You should try uploadcare.com they are ready to use solution for hosting
images and videos.

------
throwawaysea
The issue is that a CDN is still involved - and they, like YouTube and others,
can ultimately choose to deplatform you. LBRY (decentralized video sharing)
might be a better alternative, perhaps?
[https://itsfoss.com/lbry/](https://itsfoss.com/lbry/)

~~~
robjan
I don't think they need a Blockchain solution to serve a few, likely
uncontroversial, marketing video files.

~~~
ethanwillis
Uncontroversial content gets taken down all the time because, as Googlers who
show up in those threads like to say, moderation is not webscale.

~~~
robjan
This is about a CDN though, not Google.

~~~
ethanwillis
Youtube is owned by Google. The parent comment to you was talking about using
decentralized solutions to avoid takedowns on CDNs and platforms like
Youtube.. which they explicitly mentioned.

------
homero
Have you tried cloudflare hosted video?

------
nuker
WhateverCDN will be same game as WhateverVPN, i'm afraid.

------
amelius
Ok, but this doesn't solve discoverability.

~~~
Deukhoofd
Probably not an issue for the writer of the blog, as he's just using videos to
embed in blog posts.

------
LeoPanthera
If your videos are less than 512MB each, you can serve them through
Cloudflare's free plan.

~~~
tmikaeld
No, that's against their ToS.

------
vhiremath4
Relevant to post:

I would highly suggest keeping the same CDN as the cloud/storage offering you
work within. You get dinged quite a bit on transfer costs otherwise. So, if
you're on AWS, stick to Cloudfront, etc.

Potentially relevant to post:

Note: I am the founder of Loom, so this is obviously extremely biased.

With Loom ([https://www.loom.com](https://www.loom.com)) you will soon be able
to upload unlimited videos (as well as record since we have recorders) to a
plan for $10/month. No caps on viewing or storage.

