2 ms·
Most important part to notice here: Amazon just told everybody loud and clear that you can't rely on S3/EC2 as a critical infrastructure piece - they undercut e
by groby_b 16y ago
Most important part to notice here: Amazon just told everybody loud and clear that you can't rely on S3/EC2 as a critical infrastructure piece - they undercut every single storage provider relying on S3, pricing-wise.
You are still good if you offer significant value-add over base services since it's expensive to replicate that, but basic storage/compute services don't look so good.
- adpowers 16y agoWell, if you are a large player like Dropbox you'll get really good S3 rates because you fall into the higher tiers. If you are in the 5+ PB tier you are only paying $13.2 for 20 GB/year, whereas Amazon is charging $20. If you have enough scale you can probably make the numbers pen out.
- bdonlan 16y agoThey don't offer an API for this cloud files service and the ToS clearly restricts it to personal use. They may be positioning it as a loss leader (or at least with slimmer margins than S3 normally has) in order to drive sales to Amazon MP3 - or they may be doing deduplication internally to reduce costs. Whatever the case, the fact that Amazon can undercut S3's prices doesn't really say anything bad about S3 itself - it just means you've got to consider if you can beat Amazon Cloud Drive's pricing while still using S3 as a backend. Oh, and google docs has been offering storage for 25% of the Amazon Cloud Drive pricing for ages now. It's just as inconvenient to use for bulk storage or backups, of course.
- paulridden 16y agoDepends what you use to access it. I'm using Google Docs with SMEStorage and they enable me to upload / download files to Google Docs using FTP - makes it easy....