How does Azure's secondary region capability provide cloud vendor redundancy?
My experience is, that a company who decides to use AWS (or whatever) only decided to use one specific vendor and would need to reevaluate every other vendor the same way.
If you can't trust AWS enough, i wouldn't use AWS.
>security breach
if you want to reduce your attack surface, copying your data across multiple providers is counter-productive. instead of having to hack your specific cloud provider, the attacker only needs to hack one of many cloud providers.
Splitting your data across multiple vendors protects against all kinds of failures from all sides (including the vendor simply closing your account for no reason)
There is value in improving the UI for less experienced devs / non technical users.
Might be worth exploring other markets?
azure has secondary region built into their blob solution, which is essentially what you're describing. and considering your site has a bunch of moving parts (multi-cloud, file conversion, search, etc.), I'm not really convinced that you'll be more reliable than the cloud provider. in other words, you'll be the cause of downtime more often than s3 failing.
>Other things it might have over a cloud storage is you can assign tokens with different access levels, so your applications that need read only will be assigned read only tokens and your applications that need read/write can use read/write tokens.
aws/azure iam handles this.
>Larger customers that aren't interested in the cloud or are cloud averse with their sensitive documents can do a local install and have it store on a share inside their own network, so the method of storage is mutable; Azure, AWS, SMB, even FTP.
but there are many storage appliances (what you're essentially describing) out there, including open source ones like owncloud. what makes yours stand out?