S3 sets a high bar in terms of durability and availability, so it will be interesting to see how well DO can compete, and it will take a long time to gain the same level of trust that S3 has earned.
That said, I kind of hope it's not Compose.io - they seem ridiculously overpriced for PostgreSQL compared to AWS's and GCP's offerings.
It rarely if ever works properly with standard Linux or Windows tools (s3), it has a rat's nest of arbitrary restrictions which require a language lawyer to decypher (s3/iam/vpc/roles), the APIs are vendor specific and sometimes even region specific (s3), the APIs are obtuse (s3 multipart), the clients are buggy (boto/boto3), suddenly you inherit extra costs and configuration requirements if you want to do something like expose it over http (route53/cloudfront/s3), credential storage is a nightmare for distribution compared to rsync/ssh etc. Ugh.
Please note I have used Google Storage as well and all of the above also apply.
The only thing that is positive is capital expenditure is low.
[1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/usingHLmpuJav...
Edit: Added link to high level API
I don't understand this argument. Why is it harder to store credentials for S3 or GCS than it is to store credentials for rsync or ssh?
Is it S3 compatible? Does it compete with S3? Does it supports static file hosting? How do permissions work?
I think it would make more sense to communicate that you're looking for beta testers for an object storage service.
Is it possible to get early developer access to the API?
This might be possible because of the advances in software defined networking. Cloud firewall removes the hassles of setting up complex iptables in the name of network security and frees those extra cpu cycles and memory utilization.
DigitalOcean is getting better at solving common VPS use cases. I like it :)
For me it seems if a developer has to spend more than an hour testing this new product they are better off using S3.
