3 ms·
I wouldn't have to bake that into the price. If you signed up you would have your own AWS account and get billed for storage directly.
by jmathai 16y ago
I wouldn't have to bake that into the price. If you signed up you would have your own AWS account and get billed for storage directly.
- dsl 16y agoYou don't get it. Getting billed for storage directly is not a feature 99% of the people on the Internet want. Make it simple for your users and don't get cute with pricing models.
- jmathai 16y agoI do understand what you meant but wanted to clarify a few things. 1) This is really for 1% of people on the Internet (possibly less). Facebook is great for the majority but not for people who want to retain ownership and original versions of all their photos that they are confident they can get anytime they want. 2) I agree about making it simple. But I am not really interested in making it simple at the cost of the main vision of this idea - letting users "own" the photo (meaning it resides in their own amazon bucket). Unless there's a way to use FPS to do this I probably wouldn't consider "simplifying" it the way you mentioned. This is more of a pro bono idea than one I wanted to or intended to make a lot of money on. I already have those ideas I'm working on :).