PRODUCTS
“Nobody gets fired for buying IBM” was a popular expression in tech back in the 90s. It was a safe bet until it wasn’t. why? Because IBM’s R&D was spread too thin, its key tech aged badly, and more focused alternatives mushroomed slowly and then quickly sweeping them aside.
Today, this analogy applies to AWS’ streaming technology, much of which was modern a decade or more ago but today is unnecessarily complex and costly.
Putting aside complexity, let’s focus on costs for today.
How does it feel to pay $3050 to encode and stream a 1-minute video with AWS? A 1-min video, 1080p resolution, streamed at 5 Mbps to 500,000 monthly viewers. The same scenario with FastPix costs $407, which is exactly 77% cheaper.
Put differently, AWS is 4X more expensive than FastPix.
Some of this difference comes down to pricing in GB as AWS does Vs pricing in Mins as FastPix does.
TLDR;
You know the story, probably you would have heard it multiple times, the product launch goes well, marketing runs a campaign, and the videos get traction. Then the finance team drops an AWS bill on your desk.
It’s not a nice surprise.
Five figures.
Mostly bandwidth.
You check the bill: S3 egress + CloudFront delivery. The same setup you thought was “cheap and simple” for streaming a few videos is now a runaway line item. And worse — you’ve still got engineering hours sunk into glue code just to keep it running.
That’s the trap: AWS S3 feels like the easy option for video delivery, until scale turns convenience into a budget leak.
Let’s run the numbers
Let’s take a Standard use case and run the numbers
No edge cases, no cherry-picking*
Too many people believe they can stream with just S3 (hence the reason for above inclusion). Then there are others who learn CloudFront can be handy. So, both scenarios are shown here. With the latter you save $100, but now you’re running two services, with two sets of configs and failure points.
A quick note – Just S3 and CloudFront are insufficient for modern streaming. More like you need 7-10 different AWS products to what FastPix’ s one platform does.
FastPix bills on minutes delivered, not raw GB. You pay for what people actually watch — storage and delivery included.
That’s ~70% less than S3 and 68% less than S3 + CloudFront.
AWS S3 + CloudFront is general-purpose. It charges for every byte sent, whether viewers watch 5 seconds or the whole video.
FastPix is streaming-native:
This isn’t a temporary pricing hack — it’s a fundamentally more efficient delivery model.
At 500k views, the AWS bill stings. At 5M views, it’s painful.
.png)
Hyperscalers love commitment. Not just the “we’ll send you a holiday card” kind — but the kind that ties you to a contract for 12, 24, sometimes even 36 months. It’s sold as “preferred pricing,” but it’s a handcuff.
Once you’re in, migrating out isn’t just switching services — it’s unwinding months of engineering work, rewriting integrations, and renegotiating internal timelines.
So let’s run the numbers for a 12-month lock-in where your viewership grows 10% month-over-month.
.png)
If you’re paying per GB for streaming, you’re paying for:
FastPix changes the economic model and that’s why the price gap is structural, not temporary.
Run your own numbers:
If your AWS bill for video delivery is over $2k/month, let’s model it against FastPix.
We’ll show your actual savings, factoring in both direct costs and operational time.
Every month you wait is another AWS bill you didn’t need to pay.
Get a Custom Cost Breakdown →
Talk with our engineers and uncover your real savings potential.
.png)
.png)
