It's clear that the cost of storage is approaching $0, but it's surprising to me that the price of these company's services vary so much:<p>- Box: $180/year for unlimited (<a href="https://www.box.com/pricing/" rel="nofollow">https://www.box.com/pricing/</a>)<p>- Google: $120/year for 1TB (<a href="https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en</a>)<p>- Dropbox: $100/year for 1TB (<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/pro" rel="nofollow">https://www.dropbox.com/pro</a>)<p>- Amazon: $60/year for unlimited (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/drive/landing/everything/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/gp/drive/landing/everything/</a>)<p>- Microsoft: $60/year for 1TB (<a href="https://products.office.com/en-us/business/compare-office-365-for-business-plans" rel="nofollow">https://products.office.com/en-us/business/compare-office-36...</a>)<p>They all offer approximately the same service, but from cheapest to priciest is almost 3x. I wonder how much sand is left in the hourglass for companies like Box & Dropbox? Also, how much longer will Google keep their price at $120/year for 1TB when Amazon is half that for unlimited storage? Also, does your average Joe even care when you get 15GB for free from Google?
Didn't they launch this last year?<p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/cloud-storage/amazon-prime-gains-unlimited-photo-storage-with-caveats/d/d-id/1317235" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/cloud-storage/amazon-pr...</a>
Reminds me of Microsoft's unlimited storage adventure<p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/3/9662414/microsoft-reduces-free-onedrive-storage-15-to-5-gb-removes-unlimited" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/3/9662414/microsoft-reduces-...</a>
Amazon nags me quite a bit and tries to upsale me to Prime on the Amazon website.<p>Every single time I click "check out" and in several other places I get these Prime popovers or full page ads with a very small "No thanks" or "Cancel" link. There are now even normal non-Amazon products that are sold only to Prime members. Is this how Amazon.com cares about loyal 15+ year consumers?<p>I DO NOT WANT PRIME, GOT IT? Not now, not tomorrow, not next months, never. Why should I pay a premium membership for a virtual shopping center?!? Are there any "Prime"-nag-screen blocker browser plugins?...
To clear up the pricing confusion:<p>- It's FREE for Prime Members<p>- It's $11.99 a year for non-prime members<p>The other caveat is that it's unlimited for photos, but only 5gig of video.
The risk of Amazon shutting down your account, even as a Prime member, is too high to justify investment in any of their cloud services or hardware. Even if they don't actually shut down your account and just send you threats based on fictional terms of service that you've never agreed to, as they did to me, I would never trust them with anything sensitive again. I wouldn't be surprised if they start shutting down AWS services in the future for arbitrary violations not stated in any terms of service. This kind of behavior should not have to be tolerated by loyal, paying customers, yet Amazon has been doing it continuously for many years.
I'm sure someone somewhere is working on code to break up large files into multiple images.<p>$1/month for image hosting is dirt cheap though if you can do public url access to images.
Anyone have any info on Amazon's security practices for their cloud/photo storage? I'm slightly more tempted to go with them to store my photos than Google, if only for the implicit contract that I'm paying them to be a Prime Member and hence paying in some way for the storage, so they should in theory be less likely to try to profit off of my photos...but I'm also still paranoid.
Does anyone know what the privacy restrictions around your photos are? Does amazon reserve the right to scan/analyze the images? I'm becoming increasingly wary of freebies like this, especially ones that provide advertisers/retailers a detailed and intimate view into your life.
Are there any tools to upload the Photos library for Mac users? I tried the "Amazon Cloud Drive" app, but it's useless. Even when I drill down into the .photoslibrary package the Amazon syncing app gives a "File type error".
On that note, what's the most convenient way out there if you want to use a cloud service as an external drive to store most of your images in RAW format?<p>Ideally you wouldn't have to keep them all on your local drive, only the ones you're working with. I know S3 would be a fit, but I'm thinking something equally cheap, but with a nicer web interface specific to photography and similar affordable pricing.
Right now I use backblaze for $5 a month.<p>This covers my photos and videos on OSX.<p>I saw in another comment that backblaze is only one datacenter.<p>If Amazon included video even if it was only 1 TB I would dump backblaze.<p>I may still use the prime photos for my iphone as apple cannot backup the amount of photos I take to their cloud.<p>Transferring them to the iMac for backblaze is a pain.<p>If Prime Photos had a print service where we could do Christmas cards etc that would be even cooler.
Anyone use this service as a backup of photos? I have several terabytes of photos (in RAW format), which is not a huge expense to throw onto Glacier...but if I could just toss them up in an album as a last-resort-yet-free backup...then I'd feel even better about still subscribing to Amazon Prime despite infrequently ordering physical products.
time to ditch flickr then? as I have the prime membership at amazon? wish I can import flickr into amazon somehow.<p>on the other hand I hope they support client-side encryption so someone can only view the pictures after they're decrypted