This is different, though: Flickr used to charge for the capability to upload, Google charges for keeping the photos available.

Ah I see. To be honest I feel like paying for storage capacity is a much more reasonable pricing model.

It definitely is more reasonable for Google, and probably many users too.

But I always liked the idea of never having to worry about storage space and was willing to pay a premium for it.

I doubt that in the end I had more than 100 or 200 Gigabyte stored there, so Google would be a better deal for me even as a fairly heavy user, but I'd be willing to pay that premium for peace of mind.

If Backblaze can offer unlimited backup data for $6, I bet Google could make something similar work for a restricted domain like photos.

I find it a bit odd that an unlimited plan gives you peace of mind. An unlimited plan is never truly unlimited, and unlike a quota'd plan there is always a very real risk that you'll end up having the rug pulled out from under you.

I pay £2.49/month for 200GB which would cover your usage for cheaper. Or you can 2TB for £7.99 which would mean you'd never have to think about storage.