I'd like to save some of my site monthly bandwidth allocation and I'm wondering if I can use Flickr PRO or I should rely on Amazon S3 as an hosting service for my web site images. (My Web Application allows users to upload their own pictures and at the moment it's managing around 40GB of data)
I've never used Amazon's services and I like the idea of using Flickr REST Api do dynamically upload images from my webApp.
I like also the idea of having virtually unlimited space to store images on Flickr for only 25$/year but I'm not sure if I can use their service on my web site.
I think that my account can be banned if I use Flickr services to store images (uploaded by users of my website) that are not only for 'personal use'.
What's your experience and would you suggest other services rather than Amazon's S3 or is this the only available option at the moment?
edit: Flickr explicitly says 'Donâ€™t use Flickr for commercial purpose', you could always contact them to ask to evaluate your request but it sounds to me like I can't use their services to achieve what I want. S3 looks like the way to go then...
Even though a rough estimate of what I'm going to spend every month is still scaring
5000 visit/day * 400 img/user (avg 50kB/image) * 30 days = ~3TB of traffic * 0.15$/GB (Amazon S3) = 429$/month
is there any cheaper place to host my images?
400 images per user seems high? Is that figure from actual stats?
Amazon S3 is great and it just works!
A possible cheaper option is Google. Google docs now supports all file types, so you can load the images up to a Google docs folder, and share the folder for public access. The URL's are kind of long e.g.
Add the =s paramter to scale the image, cool! e.g. for 200 pixels wide
Google only charge USD5/year for 20GB. There is a full API for uploading docs etc
The content is written by members of the stackoverflow.com community.
It is licensed under cc-wiki