Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Prime Photos

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#61

Post by fizzbatter »

Veratyr wrote: post #15
wspeirs wrote: post #11

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: - Box: $180/year for unlimited ( https://www.box.com/pricing/ ) - Google: $120/year for 1TB ( https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en ) - Dropbox: $100/year for 1TB ( https://www.dropbox.com/pro ) - Amazon: $60/year for unlimited ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/drive/land…

You used business pricing for Box, Dropbox and Microsoft but consumer pricing for Google. Google gives unlimited storage for $120/user/year as part of Apps for Work Unlimited: https://support.google.com/a/answer/6034782?hl=en Also "offer approximately the same service" is a bit off. Amazon doesn't have any kind of SLA for Cloud Drive and while Box, Microsoft and Google provide SLAs. In addition, while the older compe…

re:GoogleUnlimited, That's really interesting. Are you aware of any downside? Ie, Why a user might choose Google's normal $120/y over Google Apps Unlimited?

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#63

Post by Corrado »

jobu wrote: post #48

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".

My thoughts exactly. The first company (besides Apple) to come up with a Photos plugin has my business. I'm currently using the Apple cloud product but it is sooo confusing it's almost not worth it.

IMHO, Dropbox got this right. Simple to install, simple to configure, simple to use. Apple's solution is a confusing mess of Family members, devices, Apple iCloud accounts, etc. Every time I share something with my wife's iPad I have to physically touch it to make sure I did it correctly and it is syncing like it should. sigh

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#64

Post by sbronstein »

fizzbatter wrote: post #61
Veratyr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You used business pricing for Box, Dropbox and Microsoft but consumer pricing for Google. Google gives unlimited storage for $120/user/year as part of Apps for Work Unlimited: https://support.google.com/a/answer/6034782?hl=en Also "offer approximately the same service" is a bit off. Amazon doesn't have any kind of SLA for Cloud Drive and while Box, Microsoft and Google provide SLAs. In addition, while the older compe…

re:GoogleUnlimited, That's really interesting. Are you aware of any downside? Ie, Why a user might choose Google's normal $120/y over Google Apps Unlimited?

There is a 5 user minimum for Google Apps for Work Unlimited.

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#66

Post by amalag »

msh wrote: post #33
wspeirs wrote: post #11

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: - Box: $180/year for unlimited ( https://www.box.com/pricing/ ) - Google: $120/year for 1TB ( https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en ) - Dropbox: $100/year for 1TB ( https://www.dropbox.com/pro ) - Amazon: $60/year for unlimited ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/drive/land…

The problem with amazon cloud drive is that they dont offer a synt client like the rest. So no desktop sync, only manual uploads and downloads.

Yeah the clients are pretty bad. They do have a synology sync tool which is good, otherwise I did it manually for our photos since Adobe lightroom can organize folders nicely

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#67

Post by [deleted] »

wspeirs wrote: post #11

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: - Box: $180/year for unlimited ( https://www.box.com/pricing/ ) - Google: $120/year for 1TB ( https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en ) - Dropbox: $100/year for 1TB ( https://www.dropbox.com/pro ) - Amazon: $60/year for unlimited ( https://www.amazon.com/gp/drive/land…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#68

Post by tmaly »

Right now I use backblaze for $5 a month.

This covers my photos and videos on OSX.

I saw in another comment that backblaze is only one datacenter.

If Amazon included video even if it was only 1 TB I would dump backblaze.

I may still use the prime photos for my iphone as apple cannot backup the amount of photos I take to their cloud.

Transferring them to the iMac for backblaze is a pain.

If Prime Photos had a print service where we could do Christmas cards etc that would be even cooler.

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#69

Post by justicezyx »

tmaly wrote: post #68

Right now I use backblaze for $5 a month. This covers my photos and videos on OSX. I saw in another comment that backblaze is only one datacenter. If Amazon included video even if it was only 1 TB I would dump backblaze. I may still use the prime photos for my iphone as apple cannot backup the amount of photos I take to their cloud. Transferring them to the iMac for backblaze is a pain. If Prime Photos had a print se…

Amazon have 56$/year everything unlimited plan. It's cheaper than $5 a year, right?

Re: Amazon Prime Photos

#70

Post by ghaff »

ausjke wrote: post #13

time to ditch flickr then? as I have the prime membership at amazon? wish I can import flickr into amazon somehow. on the other hand I hope they support client-side encryption so someone can only view the pictures after they're decrypted

This isn't really the same as Flickr though. It's photo backup.

For that, it may actually be better than flickr in that it apparently supports the major raw file formats including DNG.

However, it doesn't seem to be designed for any sort of photo sharing (although you can access photos remotely yourself).

Bottom line is that, if you're just using flickr for backup then, yes, something like this is probably a better match. On the other hand, if you use flickr as a photo sharing site and the backup is at least partially incidental, then I'd probably stay with flickr and maybe use both.

I have a flickr Pro subscription but I don't really view it as a backup system although having an additional set of (JPEG) backups of my favorite photos is a nice side benefit.

Post reply on HN