5 cents per gb seems pretty expensive. A quick google puts azure at 4cents/gb, as the most expensive of the big ones, and ones i haven't heard from at 1cent/gb.
Yeah, you can optimize pricing by going through the cloud providers themselves (you can hit about $0.025/GB plus cache fill charges for small requirements), but, to be honest, if a user is having trouble with $3,500/year, they aren't in a position to build and maintain a whole video serving solution out of AWS (let alone figure out how the billing even works with cloud providers), so I stuck with turnkey CDNs that bring their own digital asset management features.
(Also, the economics shift radically if you're doing tens of petabytes a month; you're comfortably under $0.01 per GB at that tier, and the largest players -- major streamers and game companies -- can push their prices under $0.001. It's basically the folks who push terabytes who are getting hammered.)
Related question: I do hour-long, 4-10 party video conference calls about once a week. Each one might have between 10-200 viewers.
This seems like a good area to get screwed, ie, pay a huge difference between a COTS black-box solution and just doing it myself. Last week I started playing around with setting up a RTMP server.
But hell, I'm still back to bandwidth. Are you saying there's a way to directly cache realtime streaming video on the cloud providers, skip the store-and-publish route entirely?
One thing I was amazed with was the huge amount of money a company could spend going into this area without doing some serious research. There are too many options and too many variables for most non-tech folks to consider.
No problem if you don't want to answer. I thought it might be something other HNers would want to know.
Hosting video files on lots of inexpensive servers or even VPSes with unmetered traffic will get you quite far, especially with subscriber-only content where the demand is predictable and capped.
HillRat|4 years ago
(Also, the economics shift radically if you're doing tens of petabytes a month; you're comfortably under $0.01 per GB at that tier, and the largest players -- major streamers and game companies -- can push their prices under $0.001. It's basically the folks who push terabytes who are getting hammered.)
DanielBMarkham|4 years ago
This seems like a good area to get screwed, ie, pay a huge difference between a COTS black-box solution and just doing it myself. Last week I started playing around with setting up a RTMP server.
But hell, I'm still back to bandwidth. Are you saying there's a way to directly cache realtime streaming video on the cloud providers, skip the store-and-publish route entirely?
One thing I was amazed with was the huge amount of money a company could spend going into this area without doing some serious research. There are too many options and too many variables for most non-tech folks to consider.
No problem if you don't want to answer. I thought it might be something other HNers would want to know.
Nextgrid|4 years ago
gruez|4 years ago
This seems incorrect. Azure changes at least 8 cent per gigabyte https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/bandwidth/
notreallyserio|4 years ago