[aresant]

Snapfish, DropBox, and several of the other large photo / filing sharing sites are essentially a UI for Amazon's S3 cloud.

I pay for dropbox primarily to store family photos & videos.

In fact the stuff I need to back-up that fits outside that category would fit in a free, or lower priced dropbox plan.

I would switch based on price alone since photos are fairly static, non-changing, and the #1 concern is that they survive a hard disk crash.

I wonder when Amazon just decides to go and own this market by offering a better photo UI, or buys somebody to do it for them.

Amazon has already shown they have no fear of running over profitable customer segments (eg they launched Prime Video while also counting NetFlix as a huge client).

[waterside81]

I'd very surprised if Amazon or anyone comes up with a better UX/UI than Dropbox. It has to be one of the best designed, engineered, and executed startups in a long time. Whenever I use it share between my iPhone, iPad, laptop and ubuntu server, I'm amazed on how well it just works. To say it's "just a UI for S3" is a little simplistic.

[justincormack]

More interested in something like open photo that is just forkable software and I pay for S3 http://theopenphotoproject.org/

[aaronpk]

Agreed! I really like the open photo project. I started making my own photo backup site as well: https://github.com/aaronpk/Flickr-Archiver I suspect we'll see many more attempts at building a solid photo archiving site before Flickr completely disappears.

[garry]

Snapfish and all other photo sharing sites lack one fundamental thing that any photo enthusiast will identify immediately as one of the biggest problems.

Image de-duplication.

Snapjoy has the only image de-duplicating algorithm that I've seen that really works.

[brlewis]

Did you try the de-duplicating on http://ourdoings.com/ and if so what didn't work about it?