Seems like a royal waste of technology, energy, and money to store that 82% on the same technology that stores and delivers the 8%. That is the challenge in front of Facebook.
Facebook cannot delete any photos, so how do they cost effectively store billions of them? It’s not that simple, because cost-effectively usually means slower in the digital storage world, and slower storage means longer wait times for those old photos to load. Are we okay with that? We wait in line at the grocery store. Sometimes for several minutes – unheard of on the internet – talk about abandonment rates. In Facebook’s case, we are not talking minutes…more like seconds, so the question is, what to do with those seconds?
Stealing a page out of the grocery store playbook, why not sell the space / time? We flip through tabloid, home improvement, and health magazines. We may even through a pack of gum, or bag of chips in the cart, just because we’re “captively” waiting. What if Facebook used those precious seconds to share trending topics, news headlines, or, dare I say it, advertising?
Who would have thought slower data storage could create a marketing opportunity?
Disclaimer: I’m also a corporate blogger for Seagate’s The Storage Effect, so my affection for storage technology is apparent.