In Reply to: RE: Downloads are "better, faster, cheaper". posted by Dynobot on June 19, 2012 at 10:51:13:
In my cost comparisons, I deliberately chose the Amazon cloud service model, with their lowest usage tier. They provide the industrial size replication and engineer their servers accordingly. If one is running a high volume operation, it is possible to do much better, cost wise.
I run a low volume download service. We pay a fixed monthly rate for our hosting, so far we haven't raised any red flags with the hosting provider. The costs of providing the downloads are effectively free, as far as bandwidth is concerned, but I did want to understand what the options would be, hence my investigation of Amazon cloud services. Our biggest costs are royalties to the copyright holders, credit card processing, and support costs, especially hand-holding new download customers, some of whom are a help-desk nightmare. But these costs are the same regardless of format.
I also pay a fixed monthly fee for the free recordings that are on one of my personal websites. No billing costs, no support costs (so far) and, obviously no revenues.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Downloads are "better, faster, cheaper". - Tony Lauck 11:11:08 06/19/12 (1)
- RE: Downloads are "better, faster, cheaper". - Old Listener 12:03:50 06/19/12 (0)