Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My first thought was Apple or Google is going to buy this. Love the UI, but nobody is going to pay a subscription fee for it (and I doubt that is the business plan anyway). I think the price is fair, especially as a dedicated backup service (i.e. a third backup dest.). If their terms & features are strong enough they'll likely pick up a following from enthusiast photographers who are tired of Flickr/500px and want…
I tried it two months back but didn't go premium as there's essentially no organisation. I am used to store pics in sync-date folder names like Picasa. I just went for Picasa, which tags people efficiently, has other features and costs $2.49/month for 100 GB! Though I left Picasa once they started uploading to Google+ by default. Private or not, I didn't like that. It also lacked some features as compared to Picasa W…
I too was stumped by the seeming lack of organization, but if you use a tool like iPhoto or aperture, you can organize things by events as opposed albums. I hadn't really used events previously, so that took some figuring out.
Look for me it works pretty well once I did. I can generally let it just sync all my pictures from all my PCs and phones and so forth, but when I need to I can make an event in something like iPhoto, and then share that as a photo page with the zip file download option for my sharees.
Well worth the money so far, although we'll see what happens to their 'unlimited' storage when I really try to upload my 500 GB Aperture collection (which is only that big because I'm too lazy to ever delete photos)...