4 ms·
That doesn't sound that outrageous. AWS S3 would come to close to $50k/yr for that amount of data and presumably this body camera footage storage company provid
by eberkund 8y ago
That doesn't sound that outrageous. AWS S3 would come to close to $50k/yr for that amount of data and presumably this body camera footage storage company provides some additional value beyond just raw data storage that is encapsulated in that cost.
- TaylorGood 8y agoAn extra $270k in additional value?
- londons_explore 8y agoVideo transcoding and a UI to scan through, categorize, tag, etc. sounds pretty valuable. Who knows - it might integrate with case tracking software and do speech to text and semantic search etc.
- ThePadawan 8y agoI would assume that high availability and cloud accessibility are directly opposed to the requirements of the use case, though. Store-once, read pretty-much-never should drive the price down by a large factor.
- DoubleMalt 8y agoBut for the use case you'd use glacier, not S3.