22 ms·

This is commonly solved using Amazon S3 and single-access tokens I think? Pretty hefty work involved in getting it reliable, would be nice for a "drop in" solu

This is commonly solved using Amazon S3 and single-access tokens I think? Pretty hefty work involved in getting it reliable, would be nice for a "drop in" solution.

jgrahamc 9y ago
Cloudflare provides that already: https://blog.cloudflare.com/token-authentication-for-cached-private-content-and-apis/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/token-authentication-for-cached-...
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Cloudfront supports private content [1]. Its good to see video encoding/storage/delivery maturing; the more players in the space, the more options one has to choose from if a provider prefers to not host your content (whether that's because of a ToS violation, or because the company CEO just doesn't want to host your content). "Drop in" solutions give your provider a great deal of control over your fate, which is okay, until its not. With Patreon raising a large round ($60MM) of financing [2], I'd expect them to build out their own streaming system based on S3, an encoding engine, and a CDN, versus be under the control of a turnkey provider (a la Reddit having to move off of Imgur). [1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/PrivateContent.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/Developer... [2] https://patreonhq.com/new-round-funding-816d5a592477 https://patreonhq.com/new-round-funding-816d5a592477
- sbarre 9y ago
  (serious question) why would Patreon build out their own video hosting system? Unless I misunderstand their business model, that's not really part of their core business. I feel like video hosting/streaming is part of their Patron's businesses, not theirs. They just manage the subscriptions. If I was an investor in Patreon, I would not want them spending my money building out a proprietary video hosting platform.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > why would Patreon build out their own video hosting system? Because a fair number of Patreoneers (this really needs a better name) have private videos for patrons and, if hosted by Patreon, they can do a much better job of keeping them private than, say, making the Patreoneers use YouTube with a private link and hoping no-one leaks it.
  - dbbk 9y ago
    I disagree. As has been mentioned, a common use case of Patreon is providing exclusive, private videos to patrons. Hosting it themselves of course allows access of the video to be aligned with payment. It probably also wouldn't be that expensive. Their videos would mostly be behind paywalls. It's not like YouTube or Reddit Videos where they could get a million views overnight. So the delivery cost would be naturally constrained.
    - sbarre 9y ago
      Right, but why wouldn't they just use Cloudflare or some other CDN partner?
      - dbbk 9y ago
        I am talking about them 'hosting it themselves' via the use of CloudFlare.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    And here's another good reason - https://twitter.com/InnuendoStudios/status/913418338507935744 https://twitter.com/InnuendoStudios/status/91341833850793574... YouTube apparently blocking links to Patreon (and others) on videos unless they're monetised. "Here's a fun wrinkle: if your channel doesn't have at least 10,000 total views, you can't monetize at all. Small channels with dedicated Patreon supporters are F'd."

This is commonly solved using Amazon S3 and single-access tokens I think? Pretty hefty work involved in getting it reliable, would be nice for a "drop in" solution.

jgrahamc 9y ago

Cloudflare provides that already: https://blog.cloudflare.com/token-authentication-for-cached-private-content-and-apis/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/token-authentication-for-cached-...

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Cloudfront supports private content [1]. Its good to see video encoding/storage/delivery maturing; the more players in the space, the more options one has to choose from if a provider prefers to not host your content (whether that's because of a ToS violation, or because the company CEO just doesn't want to host your content). "Drop in" solutions give your provider a great deal of control over your fate, which is okay, until its not. With Patreon raising a large round ($60MM) of financing [2], I'd expect them to build out their own streaming system based on S3, an encoding engine, and a CDN, versus be under the control of a turnkey provider (a la Reddit having to move off of Imgur). [1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/PrivateContent.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/Developer... [2] https://patreonhq.com/new-round-funding-816d5a592477 https://patreonhq.com/new-round-funding-816d5a592477

sbarre 9y ago
(serious question) why would Patreon build out their own video hosting system? Unless I misunderstand their business model, that's not really part of their core business. I feel like video hosting/streaming is part of their Patron's businesses, not theirs. They just manage the subscriptions. If I was an investor in Patreon, I would not want them spending my money building out a proprietary video hosting platform.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > why would Patreon build out their own video hosting system? Because a fair number of Patreoneers (this really needs a better name) have private videos for patrons and, if hosted by Patreon, they can do a much better job of keeping them private than, say, making the Patreoneers use YouTube with a private link and hoping no-one leaks it.
- dbbk 9y ago
  I disagree. As has been mentioned, a common use case of Patreon is providing exclusive, private videos to patrons. Hosting it themselves of course allows access of the video to be aligned with payment. It probably also wouldn't be that expensive. Their videos would mostly be behind paywalls. It's not like YouTube or Reddit Videos where they could get a million views overnight. So the delivery cost would be naturally constrained.
  - sbarre 9y ago
    Right, but why wouldn't they just use Cloudflare or some other CDN partner?
    - dbbk 9y ago
      I am talking about them 'hosting it themselves' via the use of CloudFlare.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  And here's another good reason - https://twitter.com/InnuendoStudios/status/913418338507935744 https://twitter.com/InnuendoStudios/status/91341833850793574... YouTube apparently blocking links to Patreon (and others) on videos unless they're monetised. "Here's a fun wrinkle: if your channel doesn't have at least 10,000 total views, you can't monetize at all. Small channels with dedicated Patreon supporters are F'd."