←back to thread

Netflix buffering issues: Boxing fans complain about Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson

(www.sportingnews.com)
492 points storf45 | 6 comments | 16 Nov 24 03:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.423s | source | bottom
Show context
ksec ◴[16 Nov 24 04:31 UTC] No.42154253[source]▶
Netflix is good only on streaming ready made content, not live streaming, but;

1. Netflix is a 300B company, this isn't a resources issue.

2. This isn't the first time they have done live streaming at this scale either. They already have prior failure experience, you expect the 2nd time to be better, if not perfect.

3. There were plenty of time between first massive live streaming to second. Meaning plenty of time to learn and iterate.

replies(8): >>42154498 #>>42154521 #>>42154604 #>>42154693 #>>42154810 #>>42159116 #>>42162501 #>>42169542 #
1. freefaler ◴[16 Nov 24 20:39 UTC] No.42159116[source]▶
The problem is that provisioning vast capacity for peak viewership is expensive and requires long-term commitment. Some providers won't give you more connectivity to their network unless you sign a 12 month deal where you prepay that.

Peak traffic is very expensive to run, because you're building capacity that will be empty/unsused when the event ends. Who'd pay for that? That's why it's tricky and that's why Akamai charges these insane prices for live streaming.

A "public" secret in that network layer is usually not redundant in your datacenter even if it's promised. To have redundant network you'd need to double your investment and it'll seat idle of at 50% max capacity. For 2hr downtime per year when you restart the high-capacity routers it's not cost efficient for most clients.

replies(2): >>42159334 #>>42165516 #
2. treflop ◴[16 Nov 24 21:07 UTC] No.42159334[source]▶
Then sign a contract with Akamai, who has been in business for 25 years? You outsource if you aren’t planning to do something very often.

There is no middle ground where you commit a mediocre amount of resources, end up with downtime and a mediocre experience, and then go “but we saved money.”

replies(1): >>42159436 #
3. freefaler ◴[16 Nov 24 21:18 UTC] No.42159436[source]▶
Well, they didn't want to spend the money or more likely their own technical team/boss promised that they can do it themselves.

They indeed have a great CDN network, but it's not very good for this particular type of traffic. May be they will know/fix/buy next time...

replies(1): >>42162224 #
4. ksec ◴[17 Nov 24 05:37 UTC] No.42162224{3}[source]▶
When Apple moved off Akamai for their Keynote live streaming, ( I remember they also used Limestone or EdgeCast ) they had some percentage of audience using Akamai and some on their own CDN. I think it took them three years before they completely moved off Akamai. Not sure if that is still case as that was more than 10 years ago.

But like you stated, they dont want to spend money and their technical people couldn't deliver on time. This isn't a technical issue a lot of people on HN and Twitter wants to discuss about. It is a management issue.

5. patrick451 ◴[17 Nov 24 17:37 UTC] No.42165516[source]▶
What's your point? If they couldn't manage to secure the resources necessary, they shouldn't have agreed to livestream it. As a customer, I don't care AT ALL if it's difficult.
replies(1): >>42166121 #
6. freefaler ◴[17 Nov 24 18:59 UTC] No.42166121[source]▶
As a customer you're right that you don't care. As a company you care for the cost of the product you sell. Companies doesn't care about "the customer" per se, they care about their profit margin and "free market" competition pushes them to lower the price and keep the service level good. Exclusive rights to stream the fight? Well... it better be working, but we won't overprovision and pay over the expected return.

Buying the exclusive rights for 20Mil and puting 30Mil to stream it wouldn't be a very smart choice. Fuckups happen and this might be a mistake that cost them in lost reputation more than they expected to win.