• Although a consumer who wishes to see only full quality photographs might be willing to bare the high network charges, high bandwidth, low latency and even faster computation / colour accurate display required to display full quality images on their phones; how much they are willing to pay for such a service would matter the most as storage costs is the important if not the primary motivation behind compression for the business.

    e.g. Snapchat signed $2 Billion and $1 Billion contract with Google and Amazon respectively in 2017 for their cloud services which it recently amended - https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/02/06/snap-admits-its-cloud-commitment-was-too-much.aspx , though not all of that money would be just for storage it shows how much more money Snapchat or similar platform would need to spend if they deliver photos and videos without compression.

    But I personally feel there would be takers for such a service like yourself.

  • Voted!
    Need karma! Please check submission guidelines.
    Why pay twice?