Price isn't a factor (happy to a few hundred bucks a year for safekeeping of files/memories).
The reason I prefer google drive / iCloud is (I think) they have backups so if a truck or a comet hits one of their data centers, my files probably won't be lost.
Whereas I don't think that's true of S3. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with AWS/GCP it's up to the user to manage redundancy.
With S3, the default is for the data to be replicated across Availability Zones. Each AWS region is comprised of at least three Availability Zones. Each AZ can be thought of as a distinct data center, each one a few kilometers away from each other. So if you store your data in the Northern California region of AWS, it would take a major natural disaster to pose a risk to your data. S3 also offers replication from one region to another (eg Northern California to Northern Virginia).
My view is that Google Drive and iCloud will cost significantly more, but that is getting you a nice web interface where you can see your files. And maybe other features like sync’ing. Also, customer support.
I like AWS S3 because I trust my data is more secure there and it is much cheaper. I also trust the durability of s3, not sure that Google Drive or iCloud discloses so openly how they replicate data or if they have an SLA like S3. But S3 takes some technical knowledge to understand how to manage things in a cost effective way. And you won’t get help from AWS support unless you pay for a support plan.
I'll pay annually to reduce this risk. For some reason I doubt google would just delete my data if I went into a coma for a year or two, but I can't back that up with a source. It's just a hope.
I'd consider paying 10 years in advance if I could tbh.
And now you have to store hundreds of CDs somewhere in a climate-controlled manner
You're gonna get what ... 100 (maybe? probably more like 50-60 (if they're high-quality images)) photos per CD? Say you [only] have a 1000 photos - you need 10-20 CDs
Ramp that number up to what seems to be a lot more common (say 100+ "keepers" per month), and you're burning a CD every month just to keep pace, or about a dozen a year
And that is just photos - haven't gotten into video yet (an increasingly-common file type)
Then you also need a way to read them later (integral CD/DVD drives are not especially common any more on most systems - so you also need to keep extra hardware handy)
And that external hardware is going to need devices that connect to it - USB-A is still pretty common ... but it's becoming less so
Anyone remember Firewire? SCSI? I do ... but they have all gone the way of the dodo bird
CDs degrade over time - commercially-produced less than home-burned...but they're distinctly not permanent media
If you move to DVD-R, you expand the number of images you can store from ~50-100 per disc to ~400-800 ... so you're burning one (just for photos) every quarter to half year - just to keep up
Or you can pay Apple $10/mo for 2TB[0] of storage
Or BackBlaze a $100/year[1] for "unlimited" storage (there's a limit somewhere ... but it's pretty high) for a single user
If you want to run your own archiving service/process ... be my guest (I do it by running NextCloud on a server) - but it is not for everyone (I also pay for OneDrive via my 365 subscription and the 2TB iCloud service for all our family devices (laptops, iPads, iPhones))
In my adult life. I’ve had one flooded house and one burglary. Neither affected my printed photos. The thieves took my computers and tools. My pictures weren’t stored under water pipes…they have never been stored in the kitchen where fire is most likely either.
On the other hand I’ve had many dozens of declined/replaced/expired credit cards. Some have glitched online transactions.
I have also been laid up sick and recovered from surgery. Eventually I will die. Maybe my online accounts will be continuously maintained. Maybe not.
The shoebox of pictures will still be there in the closet even if I stopped thinking about it many years before. And it will be easy for someone to know what it is. A bill for $10/month is the kind of thing executors get rid of.
The cloud is great for access. But it is fragile. In the end it’s all Geocities, just at scale.
>The shoebox of pictures will still be there in the closet even if I stopped thinking about it many years before. And it will be easy for someone to know what it is. A bill for $10/month is the kind of thing executors get rid of.
Random shoe boxes of thousands of photos will get chucked by the executors - no one has time to go through them
No one cares
So ... if you're only worried about them maybe surviving your passing, don't worry: they're all going to the great dustbin in the sky (or in the front yard)
My spouse or child are the my most likely executors. Maybe they keep the box, maybe they don't. If they keep it, it can just go back in the closet.
Nothing critical has to happen next month and every month thereafter. There's no financial tradeoff to be considered. No need to doom scroll at a computer.
And if there is something that speaks to them, they can hang it on the wall. If you don't print, you don't really care that much about the pictures anyway. There's nothing wrong with that, making pictures is fun.
The reason I prefer google drive / iCloud is (I think) they have backups so if a truck or a comet hits one of their data centers, my files probably won't be lost.
Whereas I don't think that's true of S3. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with AWS/GCP it's up to the user to manage redundancy.