> I don't really get the business model. An open source stack makes sense for products targeted towards programmers.
> Most people that back up their pics in ~the cloud~ won't have the technical skills to do self-host
Which is why they are offering a managed service as well. Even people with the technical skills are not always inclined to selfhost.
> With Dropbox I guess you could accomplish the same, but you'd need to encrypt manually. Maybe for people with a lot of dick pics or illegal material this product is worth the 4x price
Privacy is for criminals and storing CSAM, right? Why would you even want Dropbox at this point, Google Drive is all you need. Unless you wanted to help diagnose your child[1] and unfortunately the photo was synchronized to Drive and flagged.
You have every right to expect your photos to stay private. Even if those are just a landscape. Why should you be obligated to have an AI scan them for offending content or scan them to detect who you met and when (surely so they can build a yearly recap for you, how kind!)? Did you ever get consent from everyone on your photos for this sharing and processing?
You may not be interested in E2EE or open source, and that's absolutely fine. But you shouldn't actively undermine it by associating encryption and privacy with crimes.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/21/23315513/google-photos-cs...