Comment by woofie11
5 years ago
I can pay for a terabyte of Amazon Glacier for $50/year. Amazon Deep Glacier is $12 per month.
$300/year for 2TB isn't happening. I can buy a 12TB HDD for less, if I shop around.
I'd like a service like this to keep small, well-compressed 1080p or 4k photos available for instant access, and original files in archival storage of some kind.
I'm totally glad to pay the $10/year for the baseline service, and another $12 for deep glacier costs. I'm not glad to pay thousands of dollars for a service like this over the lifetime of my photos. I'm not quite sure where the line between that is.
I'll also mention: open-source, data export, and the option of self-hosting is helpful. I don't want to spin up an EC2 instance for this when I can buy $12, but if you go out-of-business, I'd like to have the option. Could also be an option you only guarantee if the service is discontinued or has substantially different costs/terms.
> I can pay for a terabyte of Amazon Glacier for $50/year. Amazon Deep Glacier is $12 per month.
You can pay even less to store that data in /dev/null. To make a more realistic comparison you should also include data retrieval & data transfer costs. Reading a terabyte from those services costs around $100.
I can think of close to zero times when I would need my full photo collection, in full resolution, all at once. In most cases, for showing photos, even 1080p highly-compressed is fine. In rare cases, I want to edit an old photo, and I want the original RAW file in full color depth and resolution.