←back to thread

Micro.blog launches new 'Studio' tier with video hosting

(heydingus.net)
89 points justin-reeves | 7 comments | 12 Nov 25 13:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.446s | source | bottom
Show context
simonw ◴[12 Nov 25 16:21 UTC] No.45902045[source]▶
> Because if hosting videos were easy, YouTube wouldn’t be the only game in town.

Is self-hosting video still difficult, today in 2025?

My intuition is that there are less formats to worry about today, and serving video from static hosting that supports HTTP range headers may be enough for most devices to work.

What are the remaining hard problems? Maybe mechanisms to negotiate lower resolution for slower connections?

UPDATE: Looks like this offers some answers to my questions: https://help.micro.blog/t/micro-blog-studio/4081

The hardest bit appears to be HLS - HTTP Live Streaming - the thing where a video gets divided up into lots of little .ts segment files and served via a m3u8 playlist.

replies(5): >>45902610 #>>45902611 #>>45902718 #>>45903188 #>>45903215 #
1. chrismorgan ◴[12 Nov 25 17:12 UTC] No.45902718[source]▶
Unfortunately, proximity can be important.

I grew up in Australia, and more recently moved to India. Both are well away from the USA, where we who visit find the internet to be bafflingly fast just because of low latency (since most developers aren’t at all careful about avoiding request waterfalls, so even ignoring restricted bandwidth, 200ms of added latency makes the page load take several seconds longer).

Australia wasn’t great for playing high-bitrate videos hosted in the USA. With a high-quality 4G broadband link (rural western Victoria, clear line of sight to the tower 400m away that might host under 300 subscribers; at least 55/25Mbps via cheap phones when I measured it eight years ago), somehow you couldn’t actually download them at more than a few megabits per second at best. I think this is mostly latency effects, even though TCP is supposed to speed up.

India is terrible for playing high-bitrate videos hosted in the USA. A 100Mbps fibre connection can be completely undermined by what I imagine to be terrible peering arrangements on all broadband ISPs I’ve interacted with (Hireach, Airtel, Vybe), and files hosted in the US may trickle across at half a megabit per second or even less. Right now I can copy a file from my VPS in Australia at 1.6Mbps.

And so CDNs are, very sadly, rather valuable.

replies(3): >>45902763 #>>45902911 #>>45903121 #
2. skydhash ◴[12 Nov 25 17:15 UTC] No.45902763[source]▶
That’s solved by CDN.
replies(1): >>45902994 #
3. simonw ◴[12 Nov 25 17:25 UTC] No.45902911[source]▶
Sure, but CDNs for static content feel to me like effectively a solved problem in 2025.

There are plenty of good providers and some of them are practically free.

I mean sure, if you want to roll your own CDN by hosting boxes in colos across multiple continents and applying geographical load balancing via DNS you're taking on a whole lot of extra complexity, but I think outsourcing that to Cloudflare or Fastly or Fly.io or whomever is a reasonable strategy that still counts as "self-hosting", at least in comparison to using YouTube.

replies(1): >>45903724 #
4. hamdingers ◴[12 Nov 25 17:31 UTC] No.45902994[source]▶
So it remains an unsolved problem for self-hosting.
replies(1): >>45903465 #
5. whynotmakealt ◴[12 Nov 25 17:40 UTC] No.45903121[source]▶
Hmm, I am Indian and I'd love to experiment with the setup, I have a 40 mbps fibre and I think my upload speed is very limited and I'd love if there are ways to replicate your setup? (maybe any websites which can do what you basically did and give me some stats which I can later share here?)
6. embedding-shape ◴[12 Nov 25 18:04 UTC] No.45903465{3}[source]▶
Depends on what exactly you mean with "self-hosting". As in you can run your own dedicated servers across the world, with one or more providers, and run all the software yourself, have your own CDN. Varnish works great for that. If you're limited to "self-hosting as in hosted in my home" then yeah it gets harder. Maybe P2P/P2P-like thing could help if you're dealing with public content, like PeerTube?
7. chrismorgan ◴[12 Nov 25 18:19 UTC] No.45903724[source]▶
I want self-hosting to mean only hosting (as in, speaking HTTP) from servers that I control. I acknowledge this is not exclusively how the term is used any more, but I do think it’s still at least a preferable goal.

I want to self-host things. Currently I use a VPS. I’m planning on trying out hosting from home. Either way, if I get into doing much multi-megabit-per-second video stuff, hosting of that bit will definitely be going behind some CDN.