That's not equivalent. In one case you need a human testifying because the memory of the events are stored in their brain that's inaccessible to any other form of retrieval besides giving a deposition.

In the other case, the camera caught it on a digital format thats accessible by literally anyone living in the 21st century.

That's not how trials work.

Someone has to testify that yes, they installed the camera on X date, yes, the date/time stamp is accurate, yes, it was working the last time they checked, yes, the video in question was recovered, yes, the video was transferred to the prosecutors office, no, the video was not modified to the best of my recollection.

Saying "hey, I have this mp4 that proves the murder" doesn't work in court.

Cloud storage provides de facto answers to most of those questions as far as the property owner is concerned.

How exactly? The cloud has a copy of a video from a camera with a given IP associated with a given account.

That doesn’t prove where the camera footage was taken. Or who owns it. Lots of unanswered questions that the defense could use to raise doubts about it.

Possibly.

The "issue" in this case is probably that the prosecutor wants to do everything in his power to maximize the probability of a successful prosecution based on the available evidence even if it means taking three weeks of someone's time rather than making do with a simple notarized statement.

And the defense wants to do everything is his power to throw roadblocks in the way of the prosecution even if it means wasting three weeks of some third party's time.

Nowhere are there any incentives to make things efficient for someone if doing so could hurt your case by even a little bit.

Courts have this rigid rule that whitness must be given in court even if it had been given before, possibly in retrial, too.