Comments on: Amazon Launches Cloud Drive Photos App for Android Devices

By: Tyler Hills

Tyler Hills — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:06:00 +0000

Compression

By: socalrailroader

socalrailroader — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:31:00 +0000

Your link is broken-

We’re sorry, the requested URL was not found on this server.

By: michael arazan

michael arazan — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:22:00 +0000

plus they want $20 a month for 100gb, compared to google drive which is 10 for 200 or 5 for 100gb

By: TheCheapGamer

TheCheapGamer — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 02:11:00 +0000

15GB permanent? I have a ton of space right now, but it all expires at some varying points.

By: El Big CHRIS

El Big CHRIS — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 02:09:00 +0000

I walked in to a Sprint store, signed in to the app, got the 50 gb free, and signed right out.

By: Artune

Artune — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:59:00 +0000

I use Waula for my backing up on pictures files and vids and I don’t believe it is compressed either.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:23:00 +0000

If you’re going to be possibly making prints or doing some photo editing where you’ll need to crop in the future, then having a compressed backup is a no-go for sure. I have some images like that, but for 90+% of what I use my phone camera for (and I’m betting most others), compressed images are fine. G+ is something like 5MP images, so that’s more than plenty for me (in truth, 3MP would still probably be overkill).

But yeah, different strokes for different folks. I just think that 5GB for photo storage is pretty poor, and since most people just want to be able to look at their photos something like G+, which is already baked in, is a fantastic solution.

By: Gizmo

Gizmo — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:16:00 +0000

I always like storing the original since I never know what I would want to do with them in the future and it may not just be for prints. I understand your point that if you’re 100% sure that you don’t need original copies then G+ is okay for backing up.

By: Gizmo

Gizmo — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:11:00 +0000

You should stay with Dropbox for backing up your pictures. G+ is meant for sharing copies and not for storing the original. I use Amazon S3 myself since I don’t really like using a middle man (ie. Droprox) to access the same S3 services.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:09:00 +0000

You can store unlimited photos on G+ and download them to your device. You don’t have to share any of them if you don’t want to; they can be only accessible and viewable to you. Google+ is an awesome photo backup service with a great UI and sharing features (should you choose to use them) that integrates seamlessly with any Android device. I don’t get why more people don’t use it just for this, unless, of course, they need uncompressed images for making prints; but I think very few people still do that.

By: Gizmo

Gizmo — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:01:00 +0000

Everyone’s answering your original question as to why use this instead of G+ and they did. G+ is for sharing only and the Amazon service is for backing up original copies. They are essentially different services. Do you not like the same answer that everyone is giving you?

By: curaga

curaga — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:47:00 +0000

I bought S3AnywherePro as well. It’s a nice app. The sync feature could be improved though. For example, it could additionally use hashes to sync. Resumable uploads would be great too.

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:41:00 +0000

As I’ve said a few times, if you’re making prints with your photos G+ isn’t for you. For everyone who uses their phone photos for simply viewing and sharing, the compression is a non-issue.

By: JoshGroff

JoshGroff — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:41:00 +0000

I’m somewhere around 10 not counting the 50GB one year promotion i got from something. Totally forget, but it was awesome.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:39:00 +0000

This is more a photo backup service where compression isn’t acceptable with social networking integration. G+ isn’t for that.