Ohh, the complexity. Amazon has unleashed S3, a centralized storage system for developers to dump large files that they can then access via SOAP or other means. This means that large mashups that previously required at least some user controlled storage somewhere can now entirely be done using hosted services. At 15 cents per month per gigabyte of storage, it's reasonably priced. But this is merely file storage that one can remotely call.
I will probably use S3, off hand I can think of three or four immediate uses for it and my business. Offsite backups being the first and most obvious. We have large files to transfer and do backups once a week. This would create a nice site for daily offsite backups.
Amazon says:
Amazon S3 is based on the idea that quality Internet-based storage should be taken for granted.
So I fall somewhere between Arrington and Cubrilovic in their comments at the end of that linked article. This is useful, it is a tool. But, again, it's turning more and more of one's infrastructure over to a secondary authority that view you as one whatevermillionth of their customer base.
The reason the S3 doesn't get my ire up the way that other services, like Writely, do is this: S3 is set up as a service for you to do something with. It's not asking you "give us all your information". S3 merely opens up a resource and lets tech savvy people find a way to exploit it.
Rob Hof's subtext in this article is that Amazon's move is logical because it builds on a strength they already have: excellent network and storage administration. They are monetizing what they are already doing as SOP.
So, Jim Benson, who always wants you to control your own information says, if you drink S3, drink responsibly.
Photo: Ronnie Bergerson
Comments