5 ms·

Just to compare to Cloudflare Stream which I consider a honest paid platform: Streaming is $1 per 1000 minutes delivered Storage is $5 per 1000 minutes store

Just to compare to Cloudflare Stream which I consider a honest paid platform: Streaming is $1 per 1000 minutes delivered Storage is $5 per 1000 minutes store per month. 117 videos with 2 hours each and with 150 views each: 117 * 2 * 60 = 14040 minutes stored or $14/month for storage which is $168/year. 117 * 2 * 60 * 150 = 2106000 minutes delivered or $2106. So $3500/year does not seem outrageous.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Put another way - this comes out to $0.12 per view for a 2 hour video (assuming low views per video). Considering the cost of bandwidth, you can't get that much better.
- NavinF 5y ago
  Meh, I could host it in my data center for under $100/mo. Transit is like $0.1/mbps/month.
  - vbezhenar 5y ago
    Cloudflare (and, obviuosly, vimeo) allows for good scalability and provides plenty of services underneath. You would need to code a lot of stuff to provide scalability (like imagine that your video became virus and thousands of people want to watch it at the same time, that's hundreds of gigabits of traffic). You would need to recode it for different devices. You would need to recode it for different network speeds. You would need to make reliable backups to prevent data loss. Maybe you don't even need all that stuff and simple gigabit dedicated server with <video> tag would be good enough for your use-case. That would allow to save a lot of money for sure.
    - NavinF 5y ago
      I’ve implemented literally all of those things besides >100gbps which is a totally different discussion. I also had the additional constraint of realtime GPU encoding and low latency live streaming. Without that, the 1 year project would have been a weekend project. And yeah a single server with 1G transit can easily solve the problem that this thread is about.
    - manquer 5y ago
      viral traffic is possible if the video is free and public. Her videos are subscriber only. Scalabity is not a factor. A simple video tag is good enough, you can store it on object storage (anyone but s3) . This she should do anyway for backup, any provider can kick her out for copyright violations and block her access to her own content. Transcoding is not that difficult anymore video editing software allows you to transcode for the web directly . Unlike 5-10 years back every brower recognizes mp4 h264 today just one file is adequate.
bobitsaboy 5y ago
You do realize that's ~60% of what they attempted to shake them down for, right? An existing customer? With no reasonable notice?
- KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
  If you're not willing to pay for bandwidth you're not a legit customer.
  - bobitsaboy 5y ago
    > If you're not willing to pay for bandwidth you're not a legit customer. If they're not willing to pay a hefty premium for it? I don't follow your comment, buddy. They're already a paying customer paying what was asked of them. Why would you not just use Cloudfare Stream or another option and save roughly 40% of the cost?
    - ziml77 5y ago
      If Vimeo has no value-add, then that's what people should be doing. It's not like Vimeo is a platform for content discovery like YouTube so it should be no problem for anyone to switch.
      - bobitsaboy 5y ago
        Right. Vimeo has a pleasant player. I like it. However, it's essentially the same service otherwise. Point your customers or business partners to a URL and they stream it from there.
        KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
        It's basically a fact that she's underpaying for what she's using. That she gets no value out of the service isn't the fault of the service, she's just literally not using the service. Since that's the case she shouldn't use the service and use a different service that actually does what she wants and has the correct value proposition for her. It sounds like that's exactly what's happening and there's no problem anywhere. There's lots of comments here pitying vimeo for losing "customers" like her but err, vimeo's the one kicking her out. She gets on a service that's more appropriate for her, vimeo gets rid of a money losing customer. Everyone wins.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

Put another way - this comes out to $0.12 per view for a 2 hour video (assuming low views per video). Considering the cost of bandwidth, you can't get that much better.

NavinF 5y ago
Meh, I could host it in my data center for under $100/mo. Transit is like $0.1/mbps/month.
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  Cloudflare (and, obviuosly, vimeo) allows for good scalability and provides plenty of services underneath. You would need to code a lot of stuff to provide scalability (like imagine that your video became virus and thousands of people want to watch it at the same time, that's hundreds of gigabits of traffic). You would need to recode it for different devices. You would need to recode it for different network speeds. You would need to make reliable backups to prevent data loss. Maybe you don't even need all that stuff and simple gigabit dedicated server with <video> tag would be good enough for your use-case. That would allow to save a lot of money for sure.
  - NavinF 5y ago
    I’ve implemented literally all of those things besides >100gbps which is a totally different discussion. I also had the additional constraint of realtime GPU encoding and low latency live streaming. Without that, the 1 year project would have been a weekend project. And yeah a single server with 1G transit can easily solve the problem that this thread is about.
  - manquer 5y ago
    viral traffic is possible if the video is free and public. Her videos are subscriber only. Scalabity is not a factor. A simple video tag is good enough, you can store it on object storage (anyone but s3) . This she should do anyway for backup, any provider can kick her out for copyright violations and block her access to her own content. Transcoding is not that difficult anymore video editing software allows you to transcode for the web directly . Unlike 5-10 years back every brower recognizes mp4 h264 today just one file is adequate.

bobitsaboy 5y ago

You do realize that's ~60% of what they attempted to shake them down for, right? An existing customer? With no reasonable notice?

KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
If you're not willing to pay for bandwidth you're not a legit customer.
- bobitsaboy 5y ago
  > If you're not willing to pay for bandwidth you're not a legit customer. If they're not willing to pay a hefty premium for it? I don't follow your comment, buddy. They're already a paying customer paying what was asked of them. Why would you not just use Cloudfare Stream or another option and save roughly 40% of the cost?
  - ziml77 5y ago
    If Vimeo has no value-add, then that's what people should be doing. It's not like Vimeo is a platform for content discovery like YouTube so it should be no problem for anyone to switch.
    - bobitsaboy 5y ago
      Right. Vimeo has a pleasant player. I like it. However, it's essentially the same service otherwise. Point your customers or business partners to a URL and they stream it from there.
      - KaoruAoiShiho 5y ago
        It's basically a fact that she's underpaying for what she's using. That she gets no value out of the service isn't the fault of the service, she's just literally not using the service. Since that's the case she shouldn't use the service and use a different service that actually does what she wants and has the correct value proposition for her. It sounds like that's exactly what's happening and there's no problem anywhere. There's lots of comments here pitying vimeo for losing "customers" like her but err, vimeo's the one kicking her out. She gets on a service that's more appropriate for her, vimeo gets rid of a money losing customer. Everyone wins.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]