That's kinda the problem - why _should_ this be free?
If it matters at all to you, you can host a huge amount for static website content for single digit dollars per year on S3.
If it's not worth that much to you, who in their right mind will build a service based on providing that to you at your price point? And if they _have_ a service where the marginal cost of you not-caring-enough-to-pay makes little difference, you should - as this Dropbox change demonstrates - fully expect that "feature" to go away when the costs or support (or legal problems) get noticed.
It's not that it should be free. It's just that it used to be.
Unfortunately, I don't think that "if it matters so much to you, you can pay $X" is a useful position. More helpful would be "beware free services that cause vendor lock-in and may stop being free at any time".
Do you use a free Gmail account? If so, how important is it for you?
and not only did it used to be free,
but when they took it away,
they refused to give people an option to pay for it.
they really botched an opportunity to get people to upgrade.
further, they hurt their integrity in the process,
and their integrity is one of their most important assets.
so, overall, it was a tremendously bad mistake.
it's also puzzling they never gave any credible explanation for it. in the meantime, there are at least two alternatives, namely htmldrop.com and updog.co; both are new, and thus who knows how long they will last, but if you need something now, you have options.
So just like Google Wave/Buzz/Knol/Answers/every-other-20%-time-project-that-wasn't-email-maps-or-ads?
I'm with you on the outrage, just perhaps a bit more pragmatic about the inevitability. (And I'm a paying customer too. Or at least will be until my current billing cycle ends...)
i'm not outraged. i'm not even affected by it, except in the most tangential way. i would describe myself as "perplexed". by the change itself (although maybe it's to protect themselves against black-hat hackers, for some reason they've opted not to explain), but even more so by the oafish way they enacted it. (although, as some consolation, they did give plenty of warning to [most] users.)
Because I'm trying to teach someone how to make a simple webpage and publish it on the internet. If in this workflow you have to get your credit card out you're doing it wrong.
If it matters at all to you, you can host a huge amount for static website content for single digit dollars per year on S3.
If it's not worth that much to you, who in their right mind will build a service based on providing that to you at your price point? And if they _have_ a service where the marginal cost of you not-caring-enough-to-pay makes little difference, you should - as this Dropbox change demonstrates - fully expect that "feature" to go away when the costs or support (or legal problems) get noticed.