{"id":21229,"date":"2026-07-06T18:45:56","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T17:45:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/innovatenews.site\/index.php\/2026\/07\/06\/i-tried-replacing-google-photos-with-amazon-photos-and-it-went-better-than-expected\/"},"modified":"2026-07-06T18:46:02","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T17:46:02","slug":"i-tried-replacing-google-photos-with-amazon-photos-and-it-went-better-than-expected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/innovatenews.site\/index.php\/2026\/07\/06\/i-tried-replacing-google-photos-with-amazon-photos-and-it-went-better-than-expected\/","title":{"rendered":"I tried replacing Google Photos with Amazon Photos \u2014\u00a0and it went better than expected"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The topic I tried replacing Google Photos with Amazon Photos \u2014\u00a0and it went better than expected<\/strong> is currently the subject of lively discussion \u2014 readers and analysts are keeping a close eye on developments.<\/p>\n

This is taking place in a dynamic environment: companies\u2019 decisions and competitors\u2019 reactions can quickly change the picture.<\/p>\n

Affiliate links on Android Authority may earn us a commission. Learn more.<\/p>\n

After about two weeks with Amazon Photos, I find that it works well enough as an alternative. It certainly has some advantages over Google Photos, but it\u2019s not without its flaws either.<\/p>\n

With Google Photos, compressed images are now the default, even if that wasn\u2019t always the case. While it\u2019s possible to store uncompressed photos, you have to enable the option. Those with a free or basic storage tier might also find that these larger images eat up their allotment relatively fast.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

In contrast, Amazon Photos gives you unlimited, uncompressed photos if you are a Prime member. This means you never have to deal with compressed images, which makes it a better option for backing up important photos. There\u2019s also RAW support, which is great for those who prefer manual editing and want a bit more control over their images.<\/p>\n

I also really love the Family Vault feature, which basically lets my wife, daughter, and me pool our favorite full-resolution photos into one place for easy, private sharing. Beyond that, the layout itself was functional enough.<\/p>\n

If Google Photos didn\u2019t exist and I weren\u2019t a stubborn creature who hates change? I could see myself learning to love Amazon Photos. Nonetheless, I find myself still craving Google\u2019s take on the situation.<\/p>\n

As much as I appreciate the Family Vault and the option to store full-resolution photos, including RAW, the biggest turn-off for me is Amazon Photos\u2019 layout. The new Amazon curated carousel is an upgrade over the older grid layout, but I still found it a bit clunkier to quickly find what I was looking for. That said, there is a natural language search feature that some users are being invited to use, which greatly improves the experience.<\/p>\n

Despite these improvements, I find Google Photos much easier to navigate. Its search works very well, and the layout makes sense. I\u2019m also very used to the app, and if it isn\u2019t broke, why fix it?<\/p>\n

Google Photos also stands out for its editing capabilities. While both apps offer basic and AI-powered editing tools, I\u2019ve found Google\u2019s tools easier to use. for example, I was trying to remove background objects from a photo, and while it was possible to do it with Amazon Photos, it took a few tries to get it exactly right.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

As an Amazon Prime user, I get unlimited photo storage, which sounds great until you realize you only get a paltry 5GB of general cloud storage. Those without Prime will find that they\u2019re restricted even further to just 5GB of data, split between photos and data. In contrast, Google Photos gives you 15GB of Google One storage that can be used across a variety of Google services with relatively cheap upgrade packs for those who need more space.<\/p>\n

The bottom line is that Google Photos remains the stronger choice for those who are only interested in the free tier.<\/p>\n

As both an Amazon Prime user and someone with additional paid Google One storage, the answer to this question is honestly probably that I\u2019ll continue to use both services to some degree. I plan to continue using Amazon Photos for storing my most important photos in full resolution, but for video and less critical photos, I\u2019ll probably stick to Google Photos. Honestly, more backups are never a bad thing.<\/p>\n

The answer is completely different for those who only have Amazon Prime and are hesitant to shell out for Google One storage. In that case, Amazon Photos is an excellent value. Lastly, for people sticking to free tiers, Google Photos remains the better pick.<\/p>\n

The biggest takeaway is that Amazon Photos is a solid alternative to Google Photos, but individual preferences and ecosystem dedication are the real deciding factors here.<\/p>\n

Thank you for being part of our community. Read our Comment Policy before posting.<\/p>\n