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 :(
> Your provider especially your backups provider needs to have interests that are aligned with your interests.
I also think about all those cafés with free WiFi, where you buy a single coffee and take up a table for six hours while you browse Facebook and have your screenplay open in the background. I benefit, but the café doesn’t.
>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.
$99/year with no limits on data, as far as I can tell. The context here is someone talking about personal backups, not Backblaze’s broader offerings. We know the market rates for cloud storage, more or less, since they’ve converged somewhat, across the industry. This makes it easy to calculate what kind of usage patterns would lead someone to save money at Backblaze.
Cloud services often have a free tier or cheap tier to attract new customers. IMO, this is not it. This is a product. These people are not turning around and signing contracts with Backblaze at work. At least, not many.
So it could be that people are just using it below its limits, or it could be that it’s subsidized by other parts of the business. Overall P&L is irrelevant—you want to be able to explain this product as a profitable product, as some viable sales channel, or as marketing.
My recommendation is to buy storage products where the company is making money off you, or nearly.
The backup plan has no API access (you need to use B2 which is usage-billed), it’s for a single machine, and external drive data is lost after 30 days from last scan which makes it very inconvenient for anything other than.. backing up a computer’s hard drive. Nothing indicates misuse of this plan is causing elevated operating costs for them.
I believe they're public about the fact they have some users who back up hundreds of TBs and they're still willing to just deal with it to keep the flat price structure.
>$99/year with no limits on data, as far as I can tell. The context here is someone talking about personal backups, not Backblaze’s broader offerings. We know the market rates for cloud storage, more or less, since they’ve converged somewhat, across the industry. This makes it easy to calculate what kind of usage patterns would lead someone to save money at Backblaze.
So do the calculations? As I mentioned in another comment, their unit economics are sound, with them making more than 50% gross margin.
>So it could be that people are just using it below its limits
That's how many businesses work. Many low end gym chains operate on the assumption that most users won't use their services. There's no way that planet fitness can equip and operate a gym for $10/month per member, if everyone one of them went regularly. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to get a planet fitness membership (assuming you'd actually go), or that they're at risk of going under.
Is this some kind of personal challenge? It’s arithmetic for chrissakes, not calculus. S3 IA $0.0125/Gb-mo, ingress basically free, $99/yr÷(12mo/yr×$0.0125/Gb-mo)=660 Gb. Reasonable to ignore egress for backups—you may want to account for it, but it’s reasonable to ignore it. Do your own calculations if you have different assumptions.
That’s not hard. The numbers don’t have to be exact.
Maybe I just think it’s easy because I’ve run numbers like these for a living. Given X different storage configurations, under which conditions is configuration 1 cheaper than configurations 2 and 3?
> That's how many businesses work. Many low end gym chains operate on the assumption that most users won't use their services. There's no way that planet fitness can equip and operate a gym for $10/month per member, if everyone one of them went regularly. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to get a planet fitness membership (assuming you'd actually go), or that they're at risk of going under.
The gym closes I can buy a different gym membership. My cloud storage service closes, it may be difficult to move my data to a different provider, depending on how much data and what kind of rate limits. We’ve seen this before. People with data stuck in an “unlimited” storage service that’s shutting down, trying to transfer it but getting their egress throttled.
The economics of gyms are different because the cost is not only the membership, but also the time it takes you to get to the gym. Cloud services are a much more efficient market, which means the margins are much lower.
>Is this some kind of personal challenge? It’s arithmetic for chrissakes, not calculus. S3 IA $0.0125/Gb-mo, ingress basically free, $99/yr÷(12mo/yr×$0.0125/Gb-mo)=660 Gb.
This includes AWS's margin, which could be quite handsome. Bandwidth costs for the top 3 hyperscalers have converged to around 9 cents per GB, but nobody seriously thinks that's anywhere close to to the actual cost of bandwidth, or that hetzner/ovh is going to go under because they're offering 1TB ($90) of bandwdith for their $5/month VPS.
Even taking the 660GB figure at face value, that's plausibly within the range of what I'd expect the average person to have backed up, especially when you consider that the pricing is per machine, and the standard desktop/laptop comes with around 500 GB of storage.
You've also failed to address my point about their gross margins. The reliability of their books have been questioned, but even the short report didn't accuse them of cooking that metric.
>The gym closes I can buy a different gym membership. My cloud storage service closes, it may be difficult to move my data to a different provider, depending on how much data and what kind of rate limits. We’ve seen this before. People with data stuck in an “unlimited” storage service that’s shutting down, trying to transfer it but getting their egress throttled.
It's a backup service. It's not even trying to compare itself with the likes of dropbox or onedrive. You should have at the very least a second copy locally.
I meant the unit economics of their backup product, not the company as a whole. They made $69M in gross profit in 2024, with a gross margin of 55%. That turns into a lost only after subtracting R&D ($42M), sales and marketing ($44M), and G&A ($29M). Of course, those expenses can't be ignored in the context of a company that's set out to make money, but at least they're not selling $10 worth of storage for $5, like the OP implied.
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.
"I’d make the exception for Google Drive, OneDrive and whatever the AWS one is."
No - no exceptions.
We must, as sophisticated 21st century actors, insist that providers (especially providers of critical services) have financial interests that align with our own interests.
I don't care how big the parent is or how much money they have to burn - if it makes financial sense to keep you from storing your backups you need to go elsewhere.
You’re missing the point. Those companies are providing extremely profitable services, of which data storage is a part. Office and Workspace are lines of business with 50-60% margins.
Non-nerds are going to screw up backups without good UI. If you want to pay by the drink, like I said, use the hyperscalers.
How do you test your backups? You do test your backups, right? Your other comment mentions using dropbox, but that's hardly a real backup solution, and you could easily run into a situation where you need to retrieve files beyond the 30 day window.
Glacier egress is less than it used to be, and you can use a combination of glacier + other storage classes using lifecycle rules.
I would personally be fine running tests on data that is recently backed up and only testing the data in glacier once or twice. Think about why you test backups in the first place—the main errors you’re trying to catch are problems like misconfiguration, backups not getting scheduled or not running, or not having access to your encryption keys. You can put your most recent backup in “infrequent access” and let older objects age out to glacier with lifecycle rules.
Glacier used to have really expensive retrieval costs. That’s now called “glacier deep archive” and as far as I know, major use cases are things like corporate recordkeeping / compliance (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley). The costumers for deep archive should be sophisticated customers.
I backup to Amazon Glacier S3 Deep Archive backed buckets. The price is only a little higher for a few TB than other providers, though egress fees in case of restore are a lot higher. That's a tradeoff I'm willing to make as I'd have two have two separate local NAS replicas corrupt or die before I need to rely on the Deep Archive.
For raw backup, I use GCP. Pricing is similar to AWS and the deep storage is easier to use.
For most regular people, I suggest Google Drive or OneDrive because you get the value add of the their ecosystem. With Google, Photos are good. With Microsoft, the Office+OneDrive subscription is a great value.
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.
Having your own NAS in the mix more and more is unavoidable.
On one side, the cloud is someone else's computer they will always charge more an more for it because customers have not learned the economics of cloud hosting and how profitable it is on the other end.
On the other side, a NAS is your storage computer, in a simplified home appliance form. Connect it to back up to any cloud you wish.
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.
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.
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.
"Yeah do NOT do iDrive if you use git or care about symlinks, I learned the hard way. Backblaze doesn't backup symlinks either for that matter..."
Gosh, if only there were a cloud storage provider that gave you an empty UNIX filesystem you could do anything you wanted with ... maybe something built totally on open standards that could handle hardlinks and symlinks and such ?
I disagree with the take on UBI. With UBI more people can then pursue a career that is fulfilling for them. Rather than choices of shit jobs to make ends meet.
I imagine one'd have much more time to create things that matter to them as well, or at least the option to pursue such things. Kind of an odd potshot on op's part.
By the way, reading maps is easy. Reading a map and memorising all the landmarks and turns so you can then drive without looking at the map is the hard bit. IMO.
reply