The snark is really not necessary or contributing to the conversation.
AWS Glacier, hardly a VC-backed startup, charges a literal tenth of the cost. Given that most people are going to be holding on to their backups rather than retrieving them regularly, the pricing math works out better even though it's a bit more complicated.
Say you push 2TB up to Rsync, AWS Glacier, and Backblaze B2, and you need that data back a year later.
Rsync will cost you $80x12: $960, bottom line.
Glacier will cost you $8.00x12: $96 for the storage, plus .01 for a thousand retrieve requests, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retreival, plus 0.09 per gigabyte transfer.
$96 + .01 + $20 + $180 = $296.10
Backblaze B2: $10x12 = $120 for the storage, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retrieved:
$120 + $20 = $140
I'm guessing the "startup" dig was directed at Backblaze, but they're actually charging more for the plain storage than AWS, where you're paying more for the bandwidth!
> I'm guessing the "startup" dig was directed at Backblaze
And ironically, Backblaze is 99% self-funded and doesn't have VC funding and no deep pockets. We're profitable, the only way to stay in business without VC funding.
(Note: we did have a tiny "friends and family" round in 2009 which was 9 years ago. Plus we sold a small percentage of the company to a silent investor who didn't even get a board seat, no votes, no control. 100% of the board of directors are founders of Backblaze.)
"AWS Glacier ... charges a literal tenth of the cost."
Amazon Glacier and Google Nearline are not comparable products. What we offer at rsync.net is a live, online, random access filesystem - so the appropriate comparison is with Amazon S3.
I believe our current pricing is reasonably comparable to S3 - and at larger quantities is actually cheaper. Also, the borg pricing (2 cents) is cheaper at any quantity.
Fine... but your marketing is literally all about backups. The front page of rsync.net is "cloud storage for offsite backups".
If you hadn't told me this, or if I don't call a human on the phone number (why? this is an immediate turnoff) listed on your cloud storage page, or go read on "open platform" (which sounds less like a tech page and more like a marketing page), I'd never know about it.
AWS Glacier, hardly a VC-backed startup, charges a literal tenth of the cost. Given that most people are going to be holding on to their backups rather than retrieving them regularly, the pricing math works out better even though it's a bit more complicated.
Say you push 2TB up to Rsync, AWS Glacier, and Backblaze B2, and you need that data back a year later.
Rsync will cost you $80x12: $960, bottom line.
Glacier will cost you $8.00x12: $96 for the storage, plus .01 for a thousand retrieve requests, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retreival, plus 0.09 per gigabyte transfer.
$96 + .01 + $20 + $180 = $296.10
Backblaze B2: $10x12 = $120 for the storage, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retrieved:
$120 + $20 = $140
I'm guessing the "startup" dig was directed at Backblaze, but they're actually charging more for the plain storage than AWS, where you're paying more for the bandwidth!