3 ms·

Sorry if I'm not being clear ... SmugMug uses S3 for its storage [1]. DropBox also uses S3 for its storage [2]. They are, in essence, both layers/services built

Sorry if I'm not being clear ... SmugMug uses S3 for its storage [1]. DropBox also uses S3 for its storage [2]. They are, in essence, both layers/services built on top of S3 (albeit different types of services). So why support one but not the other? [1] http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2006/08/12/amazon-s3-the-holy-grail/ http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2006/08/12/amazon-s3-the-holy-g... [2] http://www.dropbox.com/help/7 http://www.dropbox.com/help/7

jmathai 15y ago
Gotcha. In theory SmugMug could be supported as a "storage service" if they have the appropriate APIs. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do that because SmugMug doesn't offer any compelling storage services on top of S3. Their APIs are (from a file system perspective) a subset of S3. Dropbox on the other hand provides sync on top of S3 which could be a big benefit for some users. Personally, I think S3 and Rackspace Cloudfiles make the most sense. They are as close to a raw file system API which exists "in the cloud". I mention Dropbox to showcase the flexibility of the idea and more people are probably familiar with what Dropbox is than S3. Thanks for clarifying.