Backblaze IPO

The product is really aimed at people are either vaguely aware or fully aware that they need a backup product but don't know where to turn and want something simple.

It's aimed at people like me who need to recommend a backup product to friends, family members, etc. that I can simply direct them to install (or install for them) and requires next to no configuration to get up and running. It's minimally configured and just runs reliably in the background, rarely to be thought of again. All for a small, consistent monthly fee.

It is not targeted at backup enthusiasts, and DEFINITELY not the DataHoarder crowd, though I know some in that community do find ways to somehow use the service.

To that end, BackBlaze has made strategic choices to increase the chances that they are unlikely to be an attractive option to the DataHoarder or backup enthusiast or 20TB homelab folks:

1) As I said, the client offers little configuration compared to more powerful and flexible backup options. When you backup using their backup client, it is all done under their storage and retrieval preferences and paradigm. (In my experience, these communities tend to want more ability to configure, not less)

2) They don't offer a Linux client

3) They don't allow you to backup network shares. Nor do they allow you to back up a drive and then disconnect it. (After BackBlaze can no longer see the file, it will only retain it for 30 days)

I would imagine that these strategic choices have worked, because from what I see, the BackBlaze Unlimited service does not seem to be all that popular within the DataHoarder or "I need to store 100TB for $5/mo. and retrieve it all every few weeks" communities.

At work, we have a use case where we store tens of millions of small files and mostly forget about them, never to read them again. (We later read maybe one out of a thousand, but we don't know what we'll need to read ahead of time, and the value of the files is substantial).

Amazon charges us something like $5,000/month, almost entirely due to PutObject calls. (I'm sure there are ways we could better architect this, but it is what it is).

If we moved this to Backblaze, we'd essentially only be charged for the storage, which is maybe 1TB at most. We're going to bombard the service with tens of millions of requests for like $5/month in storage costs.

How can this work for them?

===

Hi Robbie (first name guessed from email address)-

This is NOT an automated email, I'm typing this live. You have the very very last computer on earth running an ancient version of Backblaze (version 1.5.2.390) that NO LONGER WORKS (too old, needs updating).

You are paying for a service you are not using. You have two choices:

1) Upgrade your Mac OS X 10.5 computer called "rlmmbp" to the latest Backblaze. Just visit our homepage and download it and install right over the top of what you have already, here is a URL: https://secure.backblaze.com/update.htm (Will take less than 5 seconds, totally free, you are already paying!)

2) Do nothing -> in 7 more days I will delete that machine's backup and all of the files in the backup, and you will be paying for an unused license. (I can provide instructions on how to cancel your billing if you need them.)

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at the email address below:

- Brian Wilson CTO, Backblaze brianw@backblaze.com