• variants@possumpat.io
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        wait isnt it the other way around, buffering was costing profits for shareholders so they limited it?

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        94
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I dunno, I’ve been in a few meetings where people with deep pockets make critical infrastructure decisions based on extremely limited information. Trusting “them” to have a valid metric is a rookie mistake.

        • Mac@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          The older you get you realize more and more that the people making the decisions are totally clueless.
          …Until you become one of the decision makers.

          • acetanilide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yep.

            At my first job I was in charge of implementing new software (definitely not in my job description - I was basically a secretary). I was discussing security concerns with the head honchos and they interrupted me and dismissed my concerns because they “only hire honest people.”

            They gave everyone admin permissions.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yuuuuuuup.

          “How much will option A cost? Dunno.”
          “What about option B? Dunno.”
          “My gut tells me B is much more expensive than A though.” “Yeah for sure. But I prefer B.”

          Wanna waste a hundred grand a year? Go right ahead, who cares. Wanna hire someone? Woah hold your horses there bucko, don’t you know we have budget limitations??

    • brian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Curious as to why that would be the case. Unless people are starting videos, letting them buffer, then reloading and doing it again.

      It should be the same amount of bandwidth, otherwise, right?

      • shottymcb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        74
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s just people not finishing videos. Buffered but never played. In aggregate it adds up to a lot.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah i dont use youtube like that either but lots of people open videos and close them without finishing them because loss of interest or attention or whatever.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        People opening 8 hour long music videos, then pausing them after half an hour and just keeping it open while they do something else.

        Then they come back after multiple hours and just close the browser.

    • MrQuallzin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s a pretty great tool. Downloaded the entirety of Murder Drones on Saturday to add to my Plex server. Strictly for preservation, going to re-watch on YouTube to support them

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      You can also setup a script to automatically download a channels latest vid so you don’t need to check the website anymore.

      • (⬤ᴥ⬤)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        fun fact: according to sponsorblock, youtube is testing ads that are baked serverside into the video. so one day even downloading might not be ad free

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          4 months ago

          They will never be able to block me just using the mouse to skip forward. If its already downloaded theres zero buffer lag.

          I will create another step that converts the format to an open one if they somehow block that too.

          Its an accessibility thing for me. Ads literally cause me harm. They cannot possibly win me over i’ll just end up doing something productive instead.

        • Agret@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          For now you can use vpns to certain countries that don’t have ads at all, I expect that will still work to avoid server side ads.

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Beat me to it (by several hours).

      I’m not watching on YouTube. If I want to watch, I’ll download it first. yt-dlp on the desktop, seal (yt-dlp underneath) on android.

      Edit: Big finger problems

      • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wow, Seal is very much improved since I last looked at it. It has a million options, and custom commands and everything.

  • FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    In case of YouTube you can actually dump the link into VLC, and it will happily buffer the whole video while paused. This probably works with other sites, but I have only tested YouTube.

    Alternatively you can of course just download the video with yt-dlp, and then play it locally

          • SatyrSack@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            The one thing I prefer about MPV is its ability to navigate frame-by-frame both forwards and backwards. That feature is useful for finding the right frame to screenshot. VLC can only do it forwards. Reading the feature request or whatever on the VLC repo, the devs keep shutting down suggestions with stubborn reasons why it can/will never be implemented.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    4 months ago

    Also clicking on some previous segment and NOT having the video load again. Idle for too long and the video unloads.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I miss the days when my much slower internet connection let me download entire videos faster than streaming to watch them with less buffering and fewer glitches. Now that I have a rock solid gigabit fiber connection with single digit latency, how is watching video such a bad experience?

      • RockaiE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 months ago

        The frustrating thing is that when I do see ads, the ad itself plays in higher resolution, and plays more smoothly than the video I’m trying to watch.

        • sheogorath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Different CDN with better allocation of resource and location than the CDN for the content you’re watching.

          Makes sense, the ad people are the real customers vs your attention the product.

        • SSTF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Years ago I had the free version of Hulu that came with ads (it used to have the free ad tier, and the paid-for-no-ads tier). Hulu did the dynamically scaling resolution to match your connection thing, which was mostly good for me since I didn’t have great internet and I’ll take smooth playing 720p over constant buffering. I don’t know if the ads scaled or were naturally at a reasonably low resolution, but I never had a problem with them playing through

          One day though, something changed. Suddenly ads were coming in only in the highest resolution supported by Hulu at the time. Thanks to my terribly slow internet, this meant horrible buffering. Combined with ads being louder than programs, a 30 second ad turned into a multi-minute experience of a few frames at a time screeching at me before buffering again.

          I didn’t keep Hulu long after that.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If you watched it in 320p like the old days then it might be faster?

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        But 360p today looks far worse than 360p back then. Not only have bitrate etc. been reduced, older videos have also been re-encoded multiple times.

        • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s pretty wild. I have recently been ripping my DVD/Blu-ray collection and encoding them from a clean rip to my server. Encoding at 480p is perfectly acceptable if you’re starting with a high enough bitrate source. You can tell it’s 480p, but its so much better than Netflix’s absolute trash streams that will give you “UHD” at bitrates lower than a DVD. 360p does leave something to be desired, but they’re still perfectly watchable.

          There are certainly shows and movies that deserve higher definition, but I’ve found that unless they’re from the ground up meant to be purely visually masterpieces, it’s better to have lower resolution and a matching bitrate than to ruin the experience with artifacts.

    • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Network engineer here. There’s a lot of reasons your network might not work well. None malicious.

      1. You’re watching it in high def on a slow connection. Try going back to the "good old days"of 360p and see if it’s fast.

      2. Your network may be bottlenecked somewhere. Try using speedtest (search for it) and see if you’re getting slow connection quality.

      3. You may be getting packet loss. Using the ping command, try running it indefinitely for a little while (windows key+r, cmd, “ping 8.8.8.8 -t”) see if there are blips of failures.

      Remember! Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. Your isp, Google, and yes, even Microsoft, don’t want you to have a bad experience using your computer. Lots of people with 0 networking knowledge but a bone to pick with the system will give you unhelpful advice.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Oh no, I attribute it all to cheap/lazy streaming providers and excessive tracking/ads. I’ve always had well above the bandwidth required and speed tests bear that out

        However if the streamer is overloaded or being careful not to send bits faster than it deems necessary, it doesn’t matter how good my network is.

        • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Tracking is actually incredibly tiny bandwidth-wise. Like, fractions of a fraction of your bandwidth. Adserv is also very tiny due to modern edge server infrastructure. Ads are static content. It’s already cached and likely within the same city as you. That’s part of why ads tend to play perfectly and fast while the content can be slow. On the other hand, that obscure 200 sub guy ranting about why the square-headed screws inability to catch on is a giant American conspiracy to keep Canada from commercial dominance is almost certainly not locally cached. It has to come from Google’s video content servers way out in silicon valley.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Network engineer here

        slow connection quality

        engineer here

        running it indefinitely for a little while

        engineer here

        Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed

        engineer here

        • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, I’m not writing a network policy nor did I say I was an English teacher.

          Could I have made everything perfect? Yes

          Does it matter? No

          If anything about what I said was unclear to you, I can clarify. My job is about network engineering, not pleasing English elitists online.

    • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m sure the practice of net neutrality helped back then. Sure net neutrality is the rule again, but that doesn’t mean everyone instantly started following the rule.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I feel like a lot might have to do with shitty hardware in smart TVs, but idk if you use a smart TV.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Generally not. Nowadays it’s difficult to avoid a smart tv, but that doesn’t mean you need to use that functionality …. I am now, mostly because my firestick is getting shittier plus doesn’t have an Apple TV app. However I mostly watch streaming video on tablet

  • kamen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s logical if you’re the user.

    Imagine how for every one user doing this deliberately there are nine who pause a video and forget it in the background, wasting bandwidth in the process.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Is bandwith that expensive nowadays? I feel the argument is valid but was implemented when bandwidth was way more expensive.

      I mean, if I upgrade my home internet box to the 40€ tier I’ll have 10Gb symmetrical.

      Edit: there are a lot of google fanbois here lol

      • sigezayaq@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not about your bandwidth, it’s about YouTube’s bandwidth. You probably don’t care, but for them it adds up to a lot

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          I just showed how inexpensive it has become.

          Do you think I think I’m youtube??

          • pool_spray_098@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            You showed your home bandwidth. It means absolutely nothing in this discussion.

            How often do people watch the first few seconds of a video and not finish it? It happens a lot. It probably happens a lot more often than that user actually finishing it. We could be talking about doubling Google’s bandwidth requirement. Not to mention server CPU time, disk I/O. Do you have any idea how expensive the operational costs of YouTube probably are as it is? This is an efficiency game to successfully run a video platform which supports up to high bitrate 4k video at this unfathomable scale, servicing the entire planet.

            It makes the most efficient sense for them to only let you buffer a little bit at a time, not more than you need.

            I’m not kissing Google’s ass. I’m just pointing out that if you want the service to exist, it has to be designed as efficiently as possible, otherwise it won’t exist for long.

      • kamen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Like others mentioned - yes, I mean the bandwidth from the perspective of the one providing the service. For the same bandwidth that someone watched 10% of a video, paused it and never watched the remaining 90%, you can show those same 90% to someone else who’d actually watch it. That’s without counting the small overheads here and there, but hopefully you get the idea.

        • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well, if they didn’t push trash with their algorithms, maybe people would finish more videos.

          • kamen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Tell this to them, not to me. Moreover I’m not talking about a specific site but rather about the general technical implications you’d have if you’re hosting something.

      • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That 10Gb link is almost certainly oversubscribed, though. You don’t actually have 10 Gb of dedicated constant bandwidth, you just have access to 10Gb of potential bandwidth. You’re unlikely to saturate that link very often, so you won’t notice, but it’s shared with other people.

        It’s different from Google or any other company paying for bandwidth that’s being actually used, not just a pre-allocated link like your home internet.

  • texasspacejoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I used to be able to load up a bunch of videos in different tabs. Close the laptop and drive into the bush to watch shit and smoke a joint.

  • eronth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 months ago

    I used to queue videos up the night before, then be able to watch them on the ride to school. Then one day you couldn’t do that anymore.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      There use to be a feature in Internet Explorer where you could download a local copy of a webpage and specify how many links deep you wanted it to go. It maxed out at 5, which would grab the entirety of any fansite I pointed it at.

    • hesdeadjim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      It took like an hour for an image of the Ultra 64 (N64) controller to load on my screen from the reveal in Japan. I remember waiting as each line of the image would slowly appear on a grey scale laptop screen over dial up. My eleven year old mind was blown, worth it.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    4 months ago

    I remember when we were still on dial-up and I found a youtube video I wanted to show my brother, I’d let it buffer and load and have to keep the pc on the entire day until he got home from work.

  • Mwalimu@baraza.africa
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The grey is faster than the red, then I ask to myself, what a wonderful world.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    It sucks for livestreams on youtube too, since it only starts downloading the next chunk of video when it’s almost done playing through the current chunk and if you experience a hiccup, then youtube’s solution is to send you back in the livestream (amount depends on latency setting of the streamer) so instead of getting a nice live stream, you could be going back as far as around 20 seconds in the past, so if you want to participate then you’re going to be that slow on your reaction. Instead of waiting for the full 5 seconds of the buffer to play through before downloading the next chunk, I wish they’d query for the next chunk before then and not only that, but if there’s a hiccup, don’t send the stream back by so much, because also if you fall too far behind then it skips ahead. It’s all over the place.

    • invalid_display_name@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      When it does that I usually set the speed to x2 to catch up. I’m surprised that setting is still there, I don’t know of any other use for it in a live stream

  • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Modern ABRs are actually quite sophisticated, and in most cases you’re unlikely to notice the forward buffer limit. Unstable connection scenarios are going to be the exception where it breaks down.

    For best user experience it’s of course good practice to offer media offlining alongside on demand, but some platforms consider it a money-making opportunity to gate this behind a subscription fee.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      My internet is intermittently like 100mbps and 256kbps. It sees the 100mbps and acts like it’s going to be that way forever, so doesn’t buffer the whole video while it has the fast speed, then drops entirely when it slows down.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        An ABR is generally going to make an estimate based on observed bandwidth and select an appropriate bitrate for that. It’s not out of the question that you run out of forward buffer when your bandwidth takes a nosedive, because the high bitrate video is heavy as all hell and the ABR needs to have observed the drop in bandwidth before it reconsiders and selects a lower bitrate track.

        I’m not familiar with ABRs affecting the size of the forward buffer, most commonly these are tweaked based on the type of use-case and scaled in seconds of media.

    • mle@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      And then there is youtube which just discards the whole buffer content each time an ad plays. Very sophisticated. Although knowing google that behavoir is likely on purpose

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve been running adblockers since the beginning of time so I can’t speak to this behavior. Spontaneously it seems a bit amateurish, though.

    • shottymcb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      If that were true then users wouldn’t hate and complain about it. This post existing is proof that it’s shit because clearly it’s not as seamless as you’re making it out to be.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The thing is that you can’t notice when it’s working on account of how seamless it is. Yes, sometimes it breaks down, but these are the exceptional cases.

  • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    I thought the connection I was on before was pathetic dog shit (moved rural and went from 1g to 100mbps up/down at both) and the only issues I ever had was specifically peacock because that app is designed to work just poorly enough that I’ll struggle with it

    Literally haven’t thought about video buffering since like… 2014, 2013? Unless of course my Internet drops out. And that includes on mobile devices

    I shudder to think what y’all are running on

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      The secret is that 90% of the time for 90% of people, the current method of “just in time” buffering works as good or better. Especially if you’re on your phone you don’t want to be paying for buffering data far into the future.

      But the 10% of the time that it DOESN’T work when it usually does, really sticks in your brain so everyone has the experience of it not working now.