You're viewing a single thread.
It probably saves insane amounts of bandwidth. But at what cost :(
The cost of shareholder profits.
wait isnt it the other way around, buffering was costing profits for shareholders so they limited it?
I'm sure they have a legitimate numerical value for it
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.
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.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.
at which point all doubt is removed?
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??
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?
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.