End of the day still comes back to CDN though. For a 5-minute1080p video transcoded to 3-4 web-optimized outputs that'd be like 30 cents or something. But if it went viral then...
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwgv8jm36e358cq3qn2unt0hmvzaxejnk9mqrlum9m464qd7v7prqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qpqf9ss72h5cqn5zy0e9y5epuumvfgjt0r3xgnrzhllq3eumnjjl75stna6x0
It’s about compute, not really CDN.
It would cost $500 max on any sane CDN 1440p anyway. Unless your basis is AWS egress costs
Also yes this does include serving to Asia regions
Yup, even Middle East, Brazil, etc. will eat it up. If $500 for just the US, global will be double at least. (That's CDN after egress from origin storage.)
But zooming out I doubt any creator here is going to pay even the low end. Example this Ian Carroll video, I'm pretty sure the CDN costs will have eaten up most or all of the sats he got zapped. He didn't pay those costs of course, but whoever did pay the CDN costs essentially paying him.
Cloudflare Stream for example is $500 to serve anywhere 500K minutes (your example).
If your goal is “good enough” RTT (less than 75ms) to *anywhere* then you can get your egress down to $10/TB which would again come out to about $500. Example is Bunny’s volume network.
So no, CDNs don’t cost that much, but still.
But that’s not the point. CDN doesn’t matter right now, as we don’t even have content transcoding which comes with a large price tag as well.
And wider wider point -- if this is going to scale then users are going to have to mirco-pay for their own video views.
Which is a cool model I think actually, just a lot more groundwork.
