Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Backblaze IPO

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 300 posts

Re: Backblaze IPO

#31

Post by tomashertus »

codegeek wrote: post #18
bigtones wrote: post #12

$65 Million in ARR to list on the NASDAQ seems really low, especially with the 32% YoY growth. I don't think I've seen a SaaS company with < $100 Million in ARR in the year it listed.

It happens. One of our competitors IPO'd at 30M in ARR.

How they have been doing?

Re: Backblaze IPO

#33

Post by rudian »

singlow wrote: post #21
jhack wrote: post #11

There goes the competitive pricing...

Right, because the existing owners were giving you that price as a favor, and now the evil stockholders will demand that they chase away all of their customers by raising prices.

Yes. Everything you said is correct. Often startups sell at a loss, this is not news.

Re: Backblaze IPO

#34

Post by FfejL »

braum wrote: post #15

Fidelity is handling the IPO and if you have been a customer of BackBlaze for a while apparently you will get to buy before public, up to 1,000 shares between $15-17 per share. That is my understanding.

Not sure where you're getting those numbers. I've been a Backblaze customer for 10+ years, and I was contacted about the directed share program. Have not heard about price or volume yet.

Re: Backblaze IPO

#35

Post by henning »

bpodgursky wrote: post #30
henning wrote: post #8

> We have a history of cumulative losses, and we do not expect to be profitable for the foreseeable future. Fundamentals seem solid, gotta get me some of those shares!

If you're confident, short it. Make some money.

Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me. They also said the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Re: Backblaze IPO

#37

Post by durnygbur »

odiroot wrote: post #13
durnygbur wrote: post #2

Any chance to subscribe for their shares for an EU tax resident? List of EU based brokers accepting the subscriptions?

Wouldn't you need to be a customer of one of the underwriting banks? Or, conversely, one level removed, so a customer of one of the big banks on the "VIP list" of initial buyers. I always thought retail-facing brokers are just too small fishes to be involved.

e.g. Degiro enables current share owners to subscribe to new issue of shares in case of dilution, so here is the little hope I have...

Re: Backblaze IPO

#38

Post by rsync »

I find this part interesting - of the ~500,000 customers, 70,000 are B2 customers and 430,000 are "backup" customers ... which are flat-rate "unlimited" users.

These flat-rate users are very fickle and price-sensitive.

If you peruse subreddits related to cloud storage or online backup, etc., they are filled with very picky users who expect the product to be free - or close to free.

It's a fools errand to pursue this market and I assume the pivot to B2 was to build something more sustainable with a much higher price and usage ceiling.

Regardless, roughly 85% of the user-base are paying $7/mo for "unlimited backup".

I wish them good luck.

Re: Backblaze IPO

#39

Post by onion2k »

singlow wrote: post #21
jhack wrote: post #11

There goes the competitive pricing...

Right, because the existing owners were giving you that price as a favor, and now the evil stockholders will demand that they chase away all of their customers by raising prices.

Typically existing owners have been spending those sweet, sweet VC bucks that go on "growth hacking", and after an exit event the business switches to actually trying to make some money instead of pretending MAUs are better than money for whatever reason they like this week.

In the case of Backblaze they've only raised $5.3m over three rounds so that's unlikely. There wouldn't be much VC cash to hack growth with after 14 years.

Re: Backblaze IPO

#40

Post by matthewmcg »

rsync wrote: post #38

I find this part interesting - of the ~500,000 customers, 70,000 are B2 customers and 430,000 are "backup" customers ... which are flat-rate "unlimited" users. These flat-rate users are very fickle and price-sensitive. If you peruse subreddits related to cloud storage or online backup, etc., they are filled with very picky users who expect the product to be free - or close to free. It's a fools errand to pursue this…

"Fickle"? I've been a subscriber to the unlimited tier since seemingly forever, and I didn't realize it was now $7/mo instead of $5/mo. I think in the aggregate, subscriptions are pretty sticky due to inertia, etc.
Post reply on HN