This is hilarious: The article complains about the cost over a few years costing 1M, but the cameras were just 200 grand. That means they're paying 800K for storage. Do you fucking realize how much 800K can get you? I got 8TB for 300 bucks. It requires 5TB/month. That means a year would be less than 60TB for a year - just under 8 of the 8TB units I bought - which would cost just $2,400.
Can someone explain to me where my math is wrong or are they wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars? The article even says plainly "they don't intend to make their money off of the cameras, but from the data storage". Who owns that company, anyway? Something doesn't add up to me.
So you're saying they have like a $750,000 power bill? This is a single state's police we're talking about, not the entire US... 5TB in an entire month isn't shit.
I want to know who owns this company and what he did to get such a cushy deal on tax payer money, and I'm going to do what I can to file a civil suit if I can't find a good explanation.
I would think that there might be other requirements that the state needed such as security etc.
But again, I'm suspecting that they haven't considered my proposal above. I could easily see continued storage costing exponentially vs. using the cloud as a temp storage while they determine what is necessary to keep and what isn't.
I think your post is the right answer, but I still don't think you should be making excuses for that laughable price. We're talking about $800,000 to store video files. Let me use amazon for 5 seconds and show you why this is dumb.
I'm not making excuses, I hope it doesn't seem that way. I'm saying that they might not be as technologically advanced and therefore they might be being taken advantage of since they outsourced it.
view the rest of the comments →
Womb_Raider ago
This is hilarious: The article complains about the cost over a few years costing 1M, but the cameras were just 200 grand. That means they're paying 800K for storage. Do you fucking realize how much 800K can get you? I got 8TB for 300 bucks. It requires 5TB/month. That means a year would be less than 60TB for a year - just under 8 of the 8TB units I bought - which would cost just $2,400.
Can someone explain to me where my math is wrong or are they wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars? The article even says plainly "they don't intend to make their money off of the cameras, but from the data storage". Who owns that company, anyway? Something doesn't add up to me.
NateThomas1979 ago
It's not just a matter of cost of the units but of power to those units, etc.
They aren't storing the video themselves but paying for a service to store it.
Womb_Raider ago
So you're saying they have like a $750,000 power bill? This is a single state's police we're talking about, not the entire US... 5TB in an entire month isn't shit.
I want to know who owns this company and what he did to get such a cushy deal on tax payer money, and I'm going to do what I can to file a civil suit if I can't find a good explanation.
NateThomas1979 ago
I would think that there might be other requirements that the state needed such as security etc.
But again, I'm suspecting that they haven't considered my proposal above. I could easily see continued storage costing exponentially vs. using the cloud as a temp storage while they determine what is necessary to keep and what isn't.
Womb_Raider ago
I think your post is the right answer, but I still don't think you should be making excuses for that laughable price. We're talking about $800,000 to store video files. Let me use amazon for 5 seconds and show you why this is dumb.
Western Digital has a 4tb HDD listed for just $140.
$800,000/$140 = 5714 Hard Drives.
5,714 x 4 = 22856TB
Now, we take this massive number, and divide it by the tiny 5TB per month they claim to need.
22,856/5 = 4,571.
They could run that program for four thousand months if you don't consider electrical costs and physical space/property for storage.
Do you still think the math seems fair to you? IF so, why?
Edit: changed listen to listed, derp.
NateThomas1979 ago
I'm not making excuses, I hope it doesn't seem that way. I'm saying that they might not be as technologically advanced and therefore they might be being taken advantage of since they outsourced it.