[Klonoar]

> One day the clouds will fall, and your site will be with it.

...what?

S3 launched in '06 and is coming up on 20 years of being a thing. At this point it's had a stronger/longer lifespan - and will likely continue to do so - than pretty much any of the old net hosting sites.

OP was clearly just asking why bother using something like this over <insert your choice of host here>. The only real answer is that you want to do something different - and that's totally fine.

[doublerabbit]

> S3 launched in '06 and is coming up on 20 years of being a thing. At this point it's had a stronger/longer lifespan - and will likely continue to do so - than pretty much any of the old net hosting sites.

Many providers nowadays have existed long before S3, 1&1 (now know as ionos) are another.

So? My server has had just four years uptime that's not including all my other servers I've been hosting since the age of 13. I can service exactly the same as to what S3 can do. I just don't have £LOL fund where I can invest in providing back-end infrastructure like the corp can do.

I foresee it to likely continue to do so in to the future, I even have strategy plans for it when I pass away.

[Klonoar]

...yeah, the point wasn't that you have a server that's been alive that long. The point is that your bit about "the clouds will fall" is needlessly hyperbolic. S3's been around just as long and has no signs of just dying off.