> That said, the discussion seems stuck in a false binary between the control of self-hosting and the convenience of corporate services, but I think what the market wants is a third way that provides both control and convenience.

If I were to run my own version of Google Photos and the like, I'd probably go with the hybrid option:

Run all the software I'd run if I was self-hosting, but in the cloud, possibly with a backup in a second cloud. ie, put my photos in Backblaze B2, with second copies in S3 or something.

Personally, half the reason I use Google Photos is so that if my house burns down, I don't lose my pictures. A self-hosted server running under my desk doesn't carry that guarantee. Backups are off-site for a reason.

Though maybe self-hosted at home with a single cloud backup would be good enough.

When running your own backup server, you're forgetting about scenario(however less-likely) when Google Photos will loose your photos, or if your google account gets banned with no ability to call anyone in Google to dispute that. In this case you can safely rely on your own backup to have those files at hand.

I was skeptical about this scenario until one day Gmail lost 1 year worth of my emails. It's just gone. All other emails are there, but not this particular year. And there is no person who you can call to talk about that.

I want something easy to set up that lets me easily backup things like this within a user-chosen circle of family or friends. Build my own trusted "micro cloud."