4 ms·
The simplest explanation, IMO, is to look at the piece Amazon doesn't own. The bandwidth to send a continuous stream of 4K video from dozens (hundreds?) of came
by WoahNoun 4y ago
The simplest explanation, IMO, is to look at the piece Amazon doesn't own. The bandwidth to send a continuous stream of 4K video from dozens (hundreds?) of cameras from the store to the cloud for processing. That can't be cheap.
- amluto 4y agoNetflix 4K seems to be about 7GB per hour. A camera aimed at a store should be able to get away with much less, since the image is mostly static. But let’s say 7GB per hour. If all the processing were in the cloud and the data were going in the other direction, AWS might charge 5c / GB, so 35 cents / hour. Peanuts. But AWS owns the infrastructure, and they don’t charge for ingress anyway. A 1Gbps link might cost $2k per month (wild guess, but not far enough off to matter). That covers 64 streams. This cost is minimal. Of course, AWS could also stick enough of their processing at the edge to essentially eliminate the bandwidth cost entirely.
- cozzyd 4y agoMy (admittedly residential) symmetric gigabit internet costs... $700/year.