Counterexample: network TV, radio, facebook.com, gmail.com, pretty much all of the ad-supported web.
>Peer-to-peer only ever made sense for popular stuff that people won't pay for.
Counterexample: Skype (freeium model on a P2P network). The content wasn't "popular" it was private phone conversations and people paid for it.
Counterexample: Bitcoin (runs on a P2P network). People pay fees to miners so that the network relays their transactions.
Counterexample: The internet. A giant P2P inter-network with all sorts of different business relationships. Many of which involve paying someone to send a packet that is only meaningful to a particular party.
>170 million people used the protocol every month, according to the company’s website. Facebook and Twitter use it to distribute updates to their servers. Florida State University has used it to distribute large scientific datasets to its researchers. Blizzard Entertainment has used BitTorrent to let players download World of Warcraft. The company’s site boasts that the protocol moves as much as 40 percent of the world’s Internet traffic each day.
Doesn't sound like a "shit protocol that only pirates use" to me.
How so? As far as I know it's actually pretty efficient.
If you look at how big files are moved on the net in practice it's all professional CDNs. BitTorrent is hardly used outside piracy.
And when the first CDN appeared, they were also hardly used. That approach would disqualify any business except copycats.