I find it strange you suggest web users should no longer trust services like flickr/facebook/picasa to stay around and keep hold of your precious photos, but you're aiming at consumers and guiding them to services such as S3/Dropbox...
Why is S3/Dropbox more likely to stick around than anything else?
I get that you offer hosting on essentially any filesystem, but the main message is somewhat mixed, don't you think?
It's not about S3/Dropbox/etc as much as it is about decoupling the service from the storage mechanisms. Once you do that then a whole lot of opportunities present themselves which otherwise didn't exist.
So yes, Amazon may ditch S3 but if the file system is decoupled from the service you're using and there are adapters for alternatives (which there are) then it's trivial to migrate without any "loss of service".
That's the worst case scenario...which isn't too bad.
Note, there's local file system and mysql adapters as well if you don't trust Amazon/Dropbox.
Why is S3/Dropbox more likely to stick around than anything else?
I get that you offer hosting on essentially any filesystem, but the main message is somewhat mixed, don't you think?