5 ms·

Maybe you could add in price comparisons to Dropbox, since they are just an S3 reseller.

by _suoiruc 14y ago

creativityhurts 14y ago
I think they are a bit more than just a reseller.
- _suoiruc 14y ago
  Perhaps you could expand on that? If you pay for Dropbox what exactly are you paying for? Software to communicate with S3? I'll accept that the software (python+rsync+an icon) is arguably "value added", but for the paying Dropbox user, what they are getting is still S3 storage. Am I missing something?
  - andrewcooke 14y ago
    my dad loves dropbox. he would be lost with s3. for most people it's not "arguably value added"; it's the difference between possible and not. (another vote for a log scale (or something equivalent, like a separate "units" that sets the scale to 1s, 10s, 100s...). also, the tick marks should be on reasonable, round values)
    - _suoiruc 14y ago
      Right. And the topic of this thread is a price matrix for S3. Presumably your Dad is not going to be looking at it.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - andrewcooke 14y ago
        then maybe you should have said something along those lines earlier, instead of repeatedly asserting that s3 and dropbox are equivalent (and then asking if you'd missed anything).
        _suoiruc 14y ago
        Do you read carefully? When I asked if I missed anything I was referring to anything besides the arguable "value add". My apologies if that was not clear. But the value add is precisely what you focused on, and argued (predictably): the python, rsync and the icon. I'm asking about the S3 component.
  - statictype 14y ago
    You're paying for a service that auto syncs your data across multiple devices efficiently and keeps versioned backups of everything. The fact that they currently use s3 for storage is an implementation detail.
    - _suoiruc 14y ago
      So basically it's the same as rsync and a little scripting, but without commands and scriptability? I don't use Dropbox so I'm curious. I'd like to know if they're offering something to paying customers that S3 does not, apart from their particular combination of python and rsync. If we just focus on storage is Dropbox more expensive? If yes, by how much? I think this is a valid question.
      - statictype 14y ago
        If you just focus on storage, yes, Dropbox is more expensive. But this is kind of like saying iOS is just an expensive closed variant of FreeBSD. Since I'm not drawing a salary from Dropbox's marketing division, I'm not going to go in depth here but I'll just say that Dropbox can be used easily and efficiently by normal people who have never seen a command line. Whereas your home brew python+rsync scripts can only be used by nerds like us.
      - tillk 14y ago
        It would be interesting to see how your homegrown sync solution works on various operating systems (desktop + mobile) and offers a web-based UI to do the same on the go. Maybe you discover the sarcasm in my comment. ;)

Maybe you could add in price comparisons to Dropbox, since they are just an S3 reseller.

creativityhurts 14y ago

I think they are a bit more than just a reseller.

_suoiruc 14y ago
Perhaps you could expand on that? If you pay for Dropbox what exactly are you paying for? Software to communicate with S3? I'll accept that the software (python+rsync+an icon) is arguably "value added", but for the paying Dropbox user, what they are getting is still S3 storage. Am I missing something?
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  my dad loves dropbox. he would be lost with s3. for most people it's not "arguably value added"; it's the difference between possible and not. (another vote for a log scale (or something equivalent, like a separate "units" that sets the scale to 1s, 10s, 100s...). also, the tick marks should be on reasonable, round values)
  - _suoiruc 14y ago
    Right. And the topic of this thread is a price matrix for S3. Presumably your Dad is not going to be looking at it.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - andrewcooke 14y ago
      then maybe you should have said something along those lines earlier, instead of repeatedly asserting that s3 and dropbox are equivalent (and then asking if you'd missed anything).
      - _suoiruc 14y ago
        Do you read carefully? When I asked if I missed anything I was referring to anything besides the arguable "value add". My apologies if that was not clear. But the value add is precisely what you focused on, and argued (predictably): the python, rsync and the icon. I'm asking about the S3 component.
- statictype 14y ago
  You're paying for a service that auto syncs your data across multiple devices efficiently and keeps versioned backups of everything. The fact that they currently use s3 for storage is an implementation detail.
  - _suoiruc 14y ago
    So basically it's the same as rsync and a little scripting, but without commands and scriptability? I don't use Dropbox so I'm curious. I'd like to know if they're offering something to paying customers that S3 does not, apart from their particular combination of python and rsync. If we just focus on storage is Dropbox more expensive? If yes, by how much? I think this is a valid question.
    - statictype 14y ago
      If you just focus on storage, yes, Dropbox is more expensive. But this is kind of like saying iOS is just an expensive closed variant of FreeBSD. Since I'm not drawing a salary from Dropbox's marketing division, I'm not going to go in depth here but I'll just say that Dropbox can be used easily and efficiently by normal people who have never seen a command line. Whereas your home brew python+rsync scripts can only be used by nerds like us.
    - tillk 14y ago
      It would be interesting to see how your homegrown sync solution works on various operating systems (desktop + mobile) and offers a web-based UI to do the same on the go. Maybe you discover the sarcasm in my comment. ;)