YouTube (and Flickr for that matter) both use a client/server model. This places enormous costs on the person who controls the server.

But there is an alternative - peer-to-peer. Anyone who watches that nifty boob-grab stores a local copy, and there is no reason that we can't have them commit a fraction of their bandwidth to spool it to the next fellow in line.

Unlike pirating the latest Wolverine movie, corporations can easily maintain static nodes to ensure that there is never a disconnection in peer-to-peer service.

Indeed, if you're looking for the next 'Web revolution', expect that revolution to come from people figuring out how to reliably use P2P for everything from posting pictures on the web to storing your company's database in the 'cloud'.

Completely agree. Bring on the cloud!

Xando:

YouTube (and Flickr for that matter) both use a client/server model. This places enormous costs on the person who controls the server.

But there is an alternative - peer-to-peer. Anyone who watches that nifty boob-grab stores a local copy, and there is no reason that we can't have them commit a fraction of their bandwidth to spool it to the next fellow in line.

Unlike pirating the latest Wolverine movie, corporations can easily maintain static nodes to ensure that there is never a disconnection in peer-to-peer service.

Indeed, if you're looking for the next 'Web revolution', expect that revolution to come from people figuring out how to reliably use P2P for everything from posting pictures on the web to storing your company's database in the 'cloud'.

I agree with your basic premise, although I'd add that there are a lot of privacy concerns with p2p. Plus if it is p2p, whose content is it anyway?

The problem with peer to peer solutions is the same one as always.. Malware!

The client/server model imposes costs, yes. But it also confers a great benefit. They can control the content in a way they couldn’t do if the content were being shared peer-to-peer.

How many times have you seen a video pulled from YouTube due to “inappropriate content”? Plenty, I’m sure. In a P2P distribution model, that wouldn’t be possible. 

I doubt they’d be willing to give up that power.

...yes, and just guess where such content goes.

I'm lead to believe that Spotify (the free to use music on demand service that's currently giving iTunes a major headache in Europe) uses elements of P2P to keep costs down but still retain complete control of all content.