At $.02/GB you could host a 1 GB video on S3 for about $12.
Based on past performance that price would probably be even cheaper as the per-GB-month price keeps dropping.
The video would be likely be much smaller than 1 GB so you could instead spend the same money to put it on all three major clouds, AWS, Azure, and Google, storage tiers for the same price.
I’m willing to bet $100 that at least one of them will still be operating a cloud blob store in 50 years.
When you think about it, these files won't need to be accessed very often or quickly, so you could reduce the costs to $2.5 per GB by using AWS Glacier. I mean what is an extra 3-5 hour wait when you have already been waiting 50 years...
Amazon should offer this as a service. For a fixed fee, storage on S3 for as long as it remains operational.
The combination of Moore's (nee Kryder's) Law and ability to internally invest the principle should make it financially viable to offer such a product.
But the reason to do it would be the branding. AWS is a bedrock of the internet. Some fly by night startup offers a cloud based image editor, but Amazon is the one that guarantees your drawings will outlast them, and you.
Given Bezos' involvement in the 10k year clock project it might be up his alley even if there's not a watertight business case for it.
Based on past performance that price would probably be even cheaper as the per-GB-month price keeps dropping.
The video would be likely be much smaller than 1 GB so you could instead spend the same money to put it on all three major clouds, AWS, Azure, and Google, storage tiers for the same price.
I’m willing to bet $100 that at least one of them will still be operating a cloud blob store in 50 years.