High Availability Options Without Enterprise Edition

Question

I think I've found the answer to this already but I just wanted to confirm that I'm getting this right. In SQL Server 2012, is there no way to implement a high-availability solution which doesn't require shared storage or use of a deprecated feature without
having Enterprise Edition?
At the moment we have databases hosted on a primary server running Windows Server 2012 Standard and SQL Server 2012 Standard.  We have a second, identical server, and the databases are mirrored between the two servers using Database Mirroring. 
This works perfectly and meets all of our requirements.  The only possible problem is that we're looking at storing documents using FILESTREAM, which isn't available in Mirrored databases.
From what I've read, Database Mirroring is deprecated in SQL Server 2012.  High Availability Groups, which sound great, are only available in the Enterprise Edition.  This feels like a real kick in the teeth from Microsoft.  We're stuck
with either using a deprecated feature (Mirroring), which is only postponing the problem until the end of 2012's life cycle, or laying out significant amounts of money (in the tens of thousands of pounds GBP) to upgrade to Enterprise Edition, which we just
don't have the budget for.
Why couldn't Microsoft continue to offer a high availability option for businesses without deep pockets?  Do I have any options I'm not thinking of?  Shared storage is not an option (too costly, single point of failure, geographically separated
datacentres).

Answer 1

Thanks for all the feedback.
I was forgetting that even data stored as FILESTREAM would need to be backed up using SQL backups, so I guess that's an issue either way, thank for reminding me, Sebastian.
Geoff, I agree that replication isn't a viable HA solution.  FCI has lots going for it, but from what I can make out (and I am just reading up on this now so I could be wrong) requires either shared storage or a third-party tool to move the data from
the Primary server's local storage to the local storage of the Secondaries.  It all seems overly complicated when Mirroring does exactly what I need it to do, merrily writing transactions to the mirrors at the same time as the primary databases. 
Additionally, whilst you might be right about making the case for Enterprise Edition, it's difficult to make a clear case to non-technical people when we already have a working HA solution and document management.  Trying to explain the nuanced advantages
of SQL Server full-text indexing (at present we use a third-party indexing product which stores the index discretely) and simplified querying when the documents are in the same database as their associated data as justification for spending tens of thousands
of pounds is a challenge!
David, that's useful to know, about the disadvantages of using FILESTREAM and how just storing the documents in a VARBINARY(MAX) column might actually give better performance, thank you.