Amazon launches unlimited cloud photo storage for $11.99 per year

Here's a review:
http://cheeky.photography/the-new-amazon-cloud-drive/

worthless due to extremely slow upload speed

OneDrive / Office 365

Again its not unlimited.
There are major restrictions.

Right idea. Implementation needs work. The service is slow. Thom Hogan reports that it takes several minutes to upload a single D800 picture. Photos have to be uploaded manually instead of automatically. You have to upload them from a special folder. Search tools are less than basic.

But this is Amazon -- I don't expect it will be long before we see some marked improvements.

Despite the deficiencies of this tool, however, the real problem with cloud services is not the services themselves. It is the ISPs who think that you really don't need to upload things. You can have 100MB/Sec service and it will still upload at only a tenth that rate. That is unacceptable.

I have been using Crashplan for more than year now (did some comparison then). $5/month (cheaper if you pay 1 or 3-yr). Unlimited storage, for any file type (not just images or vids), no size restriction (I have 24GB vids). Maintains your file/folder structure, automatic update and recovery (useful if you accidentally delete files). You can even do OS backup and recovery (if your PC crashes).
Access your files from anywhere and any device (phone, tablet, pc, ...)

I don't think this service is encrypted. Even if the transfers are via SSL, the content itself is most likely not encrypted in Amazon's cloud. Therefore, if Amazon has a breach in its security or the NSA wishes to backdoor its servers either covertly or through FISA court, it will have unfettered access to your personal images and other content....

I don't like the idea of spooks/crooks looking at my personal images and I wouldn't want any hackers to have easy access to my personal or commercial work either...

So with that in mind, this service does not suit my needs.

To upload "…an infinite number of photos, videos, documents and music…" would take an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of money.

Can I access my files in the Could with no internet service?

Just tried it....and its not unlimited.

8TB is close to being called unlimited.

dont get me wrong..for me as a hobby photographer i will wait until raw files for canon 7D II is supported..

but for professional Photographers??! imagine a client is asking for photos or samples and you refer him to your amazon..amazon is a mass product..its just not appropriate i would say..

I uploaded TIF, JPG and ARW files (Sony a6000).
It works well and amazon count ARW files like photos. So far so good.
On web I see ARW like files without preview, TIF and JPG works very well.
On android I see only TIF and JPG, ARW is missing.
I would like to see them even as small images or something that I can visually identify them to know what photos to select for work.

This seems like a pretty good offer to me. Those who complain about big business; God only knows for what reason, then also have to stop using Facebook, Google, AT&T, etc.
If this actually turns out to work well technically, I see no reason not to use it. I'd like to have easy access to my gallery with my phone and I sure don't have that with my hard disks.
In terms of copyright issues, anyone is free to watermark, copyright and otherwise protects their photos.

When they start paying their taxes I might consider it, until then they are too toxic.

Or just pay an extra $40 a year. So maybe skip a dinner out twice a year.

I started my trial last night. Application is quite trivial - it just lets you upload your files, it was not clear if it does synchronization.
Also I am registered under new user, on email not known to amazon.
Guess what - I managed to upload only 5GB and then I had to change my plan or join Amazon prime.
So, where is promised unlimited space 3 month trial?

If you don't mind the Chinese government having their hands on your photos, Chinese IT giant Baidu offers 2TB of cloud storage for free: unlimited for all intents and purposes.

I think this is actually pretty good for anyone like me who wants a specific workflow based on upload and forget, *not* synchronization or continuous backup. Basically I want to take the out of camera raw files that I archive on an external hard drive, and make an emergency offsite backup that I will probably never need to look at. Dropbox or google drive are out because they require me to keep the drive connected and synchronized, and I think onedrive operates similarly (anyway, there is no way I will rely on office 365).

I was resigned to working with amazon glacier (making 20gb archives and uploading them one by one), but this is cheaper and a lot easier. I've signed up for a trial and it seems pretty good so far, I think Amazon have just managed to undercut their own product!

No RAW support for Olympus???

The catch seems to be - it "supports" a limited number of RAW files, even form Canon and Nikon. None of my Canon cameras owned now or in the past is "supported", for example. Everything else is limited to 5GB. So the actual price is really $60 per year.

This is good news considering I was thinking of subscribing to dropbox. Thank you Amazon.

12 bucks a year sounds great, even if used only as a third backup options.

I have about 9 TB of photos (RAW + TIFF & PSD). How do I get my photos from my computer to the cloud? Obviously, I can't upload them. . . by my rough calculations, that would take more than 6-8 months of continuous uploads (ie, 24 hours a day)--assuming that my upload speed stayed constant and at the advertised speed (hah!!!). In real life, probably about 18 months of doing this constant uploading, as I'll be using my computer to do other things at the same time.

I assume serious photographers will be uploading RAW and TIFF files, with JPGs used as images for web use only. So, I expect that pros, semi-pros, and serious amateurs will all have backups of 1 TB and higher. I'm not understanding the logistics . . . how are people managing to get such a huge volume of data uploaded in a reasonable time-frame????

I'm highly suspicious. If they only support a very limited number camera for RAW files, what are they doing with my files?

If you are a heavy user, the Google Cloud could cost you several hundred dollars a year. So $11.99 a year looks like a great deal.

Of course, the big problem with cloud storage is every contract has lots of fine print that no one bothers to read. You could sign up, store all your files there, and discover that they have the right to increase their prices anything they want to. Or the service could be sold to someone else, or mined for personal information to sell.

117 million Radio Shack customers are now wondering why Radio Shack is auctioning off their personal information.

This could be one of the back up option to consider.
What is the advantage of using the Amazon storage over, for example, Carbonite?