I recommend worrying about any service where you don’t pay a fee that scales with usage. This includes Backblaze. Yes, I recommend worrying about Backblaze and I’ve recommended worrying about it for a while.
Storage costs money. People love to dream up creative business models where your personal storage is subsidized by some other part of the business, but I think it’s just a matter of time before the business model changes. At the end of the day, there’s a massive gravitational pull that brings everything in line with market rates. These days, I think we have a pretty good idea of what market rates are for cloud storage. Anything less than market rates should be viewed with suspicion.
From another angle, in any long-term relationship with a vendor, you want the vendor to make money. We know that major cloud vendors do, or at least close enough, because they charge the same for small customers and big ones (or close enough). None of them offer unlimited data… or at least, not any more (most of them used to, but those parts of the business always get shut down).
"I recommend worrying about any service where you don’t pay a fee that scales with usage."
This is the issue and it is a heuristic that people need to develop.
Your provider especially your backups provider needs to have interests that are aligned with your interests.
The non-B2 portion of Backblaze has a financial incentive to keep you from using their product and to use as little of their space as possible. This is a bad, misaligned set of incentives.
On the B2 side, all of our suspicions about the (well timed) "me too" IPO have been confirmed with each and every quarterly report showing increased debt load and the classic "losing money but making up for it on volume".
Now that money isn't free anymore it's just a matter of time.
The sad part is they don't use standard, commodity JBOD enclosures so there won't even be anything useful in the fire sale :(
>These days, I think we have a pretty good idea of what market rates are for cloud storage. Anything less than market rates should be viewed with suspicion.
Are you talking about their B2 product or their backup SaaS? The former has "fee that scales with usage", and the latter probably has enough normal users (ie. not data hoarders backing up 50 TB on the $99/year plan that they're not losing money overall.
I’d make the exception for Google Drive, OneDrive and whatever the AWS one is. The hyperscalers are able to get prices way cheaper with economies of scale and price models in a sustainable way.
When O365 launched, they were using spinning disk for exchange. The issue was that they stranded capacity because of the IOPS needs of exchange. So “free”, (low iops) SharePoint and OneDrive for business data utilized that “free” capacity.
Storage is a fixed fee (space on a hard drive). It make money every month when it sits there and is used.
Bandwidth costs can seem like a lot more, but when you purchase a 10 gig fibre, you have unlimited data, up until the full speed of the 10 gig fibre, 24/7. That number in TB can be calculated.
Clouds massively mark up services. Ones that underprice can have the opposite problem.
I have heard good things about the Backblaze service itself, and appreciate the hard drive reviews they put out.
You should worry they'll increase the price and worry they'll delete your data if you don't pay the higher price. It's not necessary to worry they'll go out of business just because they are charging a fixed price. They'll raise the price long before going out of business.
They're not at risk of going bankrupt. This is more about confidence in the company to go anywhere that would help the share price.
The company is being plundered and run for the benefit of the exec team printing shares for themselves. Nobody should be buying shares expecting the price to rise.
If the service isn’t making money consistently, I would worry about its long-term viability. This is basic commoditized storage they’re managing to screw up making a profit on, not some super-niche or brand-new product line.
It’s bits in a barn, and they’re not making rent. That’s worried me enough to re-evaluate my relationship with them, especially in light of this research.
It's one of two backups. The software is great. Dropbox level of just works. iDrive by comparison is cheaper but always errors and files it couldn't touch.
They already increased price from $5 to $6 sometime ago
Financial statements indicate they selling services at 50% margin, but all the extra sales/admin/R&D add up to a loss
They could cut all of that I guess, it's not like object storage need a lot of innovation and they've already stopped making their own storage servers and
klodolph|10 months ago
Storage costs money. People love to dream up creative business models where your personal storage is subsidized by some other part of the business, but I think it’s just a matter of time before the business model changes. At the end of the day, there’s a massive gravitational pull that brings everything in line with market rates. These days, I think we have a pretty good idea of what market rates are for cloud storage. Anything less than market rates should be viewed with suspicion.
From another angle, in any long-term relationship with a vendor, you want the vendor to make money. We know that major cloud vendors do, or at least close enough, because they charge the same for small customers and big ones (or close enough). None of them offer unlimited data… or at least, not any more (most of them used to, but those parts of the business always get shut down).
rsync|10 months ago
This is the issue and it is a heuristic that people need to develop.
Your provider especially your backups provider needs to have interests that are aligned with your interests.
The non-B2 portion of Backblaze has a financial incentive to keep you from using their product and to use as little of their space as possible. This is a bad, misaligned set of incentives.
On the B2 side, all of our suspicions about the (well timed) "me too" IPO have been confirmed with each and every quarterly report showing increased debt load and the classic "losing money but making up for it on volume".
Now that money isn't free anymore it's just a matter of time.
The sad part is they don't use standard, commodity JBOD enclosures so there won't even be anything useful in the fire sale :(
gruez|10 months ago
Are you talking about their B2 product or their backup SaaS? The former has "fee that scales with usage", and the latter probably has enough normal users (ie. not data hoarders backing up 50 TB on the $99/year plan that they're not losing money overall.
Spooky23|10 months ago
When O365 launched, they were using spinning disk for exchange. The issue was that they stranded capacity because of the IOPS needs of exchange. So “free”, (low iops) SharePoint and OneDrive for business data utilized that “free” capacity.
j45|10 months ago
Bandwidth costs can seem like a lot more, but when you purchase a 10 gig fibre, you have unlimited data, up until the full speed of the 10 gig fibre, 24/7. That number in TB can be calculated.
Clouds massively mark up services. Ones that underprice can have the opposite problem.
I have heard good things about the Backblaze service itself, and appreciate the hard drive reviews they put out.
lud_lite|10 months ago
leidenfrost|10 months ago
immibis|10 months ago
jillyboel|10 months ago
everfrustrated|10 months ago
The company is being plundered and run for the benefit of the exec team printing shares for themselves. Nobody should be buying shares expecting the price to rise.
stego-tech|10 months ago
It’s bits in a barn, and they’re not making rent. That’s worried me enough to re-evaluate my relationship with them, especially in light of this research.
dist-epoch|10 months ago
lud_lite|10 months ago
PaywallBuster|10 months ago
Financial statements indicate they selling services at 50% margin, but all the extra sales/admin/R&D add up to a loss
They could cut all of that I guess, it's not like object storage need a lot of innovation and they've already stopped making their own storage servers and