Verkada has a new case study - "Thriving Restaurant Deploys Cloud Based Cameras to Increase Storage Capacity" where they declare:
Any footage of minor and major incidents– whether a patron left a personal belonging on the patio, or there were issues with inventory management– was lost after 3 days unless we manually downloaded the clip and archived it on a hard drive. [emphasis added]
3 days recording is comical. It would literally be a challenge to construct a surveillance system that only recorded for 3 days, given multi-TB hard drives being the norm in 'DVRs' as Verkada claims here.
The problem is that Verkada has such a poor understanding of video surveillance so they don't understand how absurd this sounds.
And among the many, many problems of Verkada (see Verkada Cloud VMS/Cameras Tested and Verkada Video Quality Problems Tested), storage is one of the more obvious ones. Because Verkada forces storage inside the camera, they charge a fortune for storage. To go from 30 to 60 days or storage, the price increase is $300 per camera and it gets worse for even longer storage, as this gif from their website shows:
Of course, the problem is that solid-state storage inside of cameras is really costly and inflexible. If you buy a Verkada '30 Days' storage camera and want 60 days, buy a new camera. Any conventional system, add a hard drive in a recorder - inexpensive and can provide far more storage than inside a camera.
Are Italian restaurants flocking to Verkada? Maybe, maybe not, though this one is literally around the corner from Verkada's office: