• Andrzej3K [none/use name]
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just because an economy of scale is real, doesn't mean the work being done is meaningful or necessary. I'm arguing that the last couple of decades have seen a lot of work being created in order to necessitate traditional 'economy of scale' business models — aka a factory with an owner — when other ways of doing things may have been better in terms of global energy efficiency. E.g. the transcoding/compression only needs to happen once for each use case, the whole movie could be buffered rather than maintaining a server connection for the entire runtime. There are examples outside of streaming too ofc, and I'm not saying cloud computing has no use cases — but nobody really believes that the Netflix model is based on sound fundamentals, do they

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think we agree that it's a both/and situation with economies of scale, so let's explore Netflix.

      The vast majority of energy for Netflix is not in centralized data centers but at their massive number of distribution points. Those distribution points serve a specific problem: end-user-acceptably fast download speeds.

      Is that a reasonable problem to solve? Yes, sort of. Instead of people going back to a central server for their content, they go to a regional server. In essence, while end users don't own their own storage and search infrastructure, the next best solution is a localish solution for the customers in that region.

      But what if we just solved the lack of storage and search at home? No profit. So you've got that part right for sure