That’s a good point - the attitude of “how is this any better than X, just use X” is one of the reasons why the web is so centralized.
If this 1MB free hosting ever became popular enough it'd be just as bad as all the other centralized sites.
Uh... Down maybe. Up... We're not quite there yet. Rural America (sometimes just a few miles outside a major city) can have <5meg down and under 0.5meg up. During non-peak hours that is.
This reads as condemning someone because of the actions of others. Like if I said to you: If I hire you, you'll just steal my source code like Levandowski did when he was at Google.
I don't think anyone would appreciate the second statement.. but you seem eager to condemn the motivations of this project without learning a single thing about the founder and his ethics or motivations.
Everyone saying that 100KB/s upload isn't enough to host a static site that is under <1MB in size is either ignorant or intentionally disingenuous. I was hosting my static site from home on far less than that for a decade.
Hardly. 2 megabytes/s download, around 120 kilobytes/s upload - my upload speed barely even reaches one megabit.
And it's from a dynamic IP, and connectivity drops off randomly once a month.
Could I host a static site on my own computer, with a little fiddling? Sure. Even a dynamic one. And it would be slow as molasses, and it would probably get denial'o'service-d if getting ten visitors at the same time.
And so what if your websites goes offline for a few hours a handful of times a year? Or even a week. It doesn't matter. This isn't some profit driven job.
This is called switching cost and it's a challenge for any new business in an established market.
Consumers ask themselves this question constantly and it's something you need to be prepared to answer if you want people to use your service instead of X.
I'm currently using Netlify for free static hosting. How is 1MB any better than Netlify?