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

Backblaze S-1 IPO

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 253 posts

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#51

Post by rexreed »

m0zg wrote: post #48
eikenberry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were talking about switching if they got more expensive and rsync.net is already a lot more expensive unless you have very little data (<300GB).

It's not just that. It's also that I don't really trust anything centralized anymore, and internet speeds are such that homegrown solutions are becoming more and more attractive. Another benefit is that I'll also be able to easily backup my Linux machines, which BB currently does not support. At the moment I just periodically copy data to windows on cron so that it's backed up - not ideal to say the least.

What would happen if your backup harddrive at your friends' place was stolen / destroyed / went bad?

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#52

Post by ac29 »

vineyardmike wrote: post #8
tedyoung wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to Cloudflare's R2 storage? If so, I'm not sure that's completely comparable as Backblaze has a huge focus on backup systems, not just cloud storage. [Edit: didn't realize Backblaze has cloud storage, I still think of them as the cloud backup company.]

Backblaze offers "B2" storage, which is also API compatible with S3 (and cheaper, no ingress/egress, etc). I think their focus is more long term storage (slow, infrequent access but cheap per unit).

B2 definitely has egress charges, unless you are going to one of their partners.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#53

Post by vxNsr »

hatware wrote: post #42

I feel bad for taking advantage of their personal backup plan ($60/yr) now that I see they're struggling to gross a profit. I just can't find a better way to back up 80TB offsite with that value.

I haven’t looked at their numbers at all but Amazon was also famously unprofitable for like the first 10 years even after ipo, sometimes it’s just accounting games.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#54

Post by jonas21 »

gruez wrote: post #47
qeternity wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This caught me by surprise as well because I am pretty sure they have stated before that they were profitable.

Yeah, what gives? I remember they prided themselves on being profitable, self-funded and not beholden to VCs. Sure enough, I was able to confirm that with a quick search: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15074289 >Finally, Backblaze is profoundly different than CrashPlan in that we never really raised any bank financing or VC financing. We're 90% employee owned, and there are no deep pockets. CrashPlan raised som…

They didn't say they were profitable - they said they were cash-flow positive. And if you look at the cash flow statement in the S-1, they were indeed cash-flow positive in 2019.

It looks like much of the difference comes down to stock-based compensation. This doesn't cost the company any cash, but under GAAP, it has to be recorded as an expense. (IANAA, so take what I say with a grain of salt).

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#55

Post by gpm »

vineyardmike wrote: post #8
tedyoung wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to Cloudflare's R2 storage? If so, I'm not sure that's completely comparable as Backblaze has a huge focus on backup systems, not just cloud storage. [Edit: didn't realize Backblaze has cloud storage, I still think of them as the cloud backup company.]

Backblaze offers "B2" storage, which is also API compatible with S3 (and cheaper, no ingress/egress, etc). I think their focus is more long term storage (slow, infrequent access but cheap per unit).

Backblaze B2 charges egress (at 1 cent/gb) with the exception of egress to bandwidth alliance members, B2 storage served via cloudflare is interesting because it means no egress charges, but unless you're just using it to serve normal webpages you're probably breaking cloudflares TOS.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#56

Post by Mxs2000 »

gruez wrote: post #47
qeternity wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This caught me by surprise as well because I am pretty sure they have stated before that they were profitable.

Yeah, what gives? I remember they prided themselves on being profitable, self-funded and not beholden to VCs. Sure enough, I was able to confirm that with a quick search: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15074289 >Finally, Backblaze is profoundly different than CrashPlan in that we never really raised any bank financing or VC financing. We're 90% employee owned, and there are no deep pockets. CrashPlan raised som…

If you examine the financial statements you will see that they were Cash Flow positive in 2019 (but not in 2020).

It’s also important to note that being cash flow positive is not the same as being GAAP/IFRS profitable (Net Income).

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#57

Post by opinion-is-bad »

tiffanyh wrote: post #20

I love Backblaze. Kind of surprised they aren’t profitable. >” In the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, our revenue was $40.7 million and $53.8 million, respectively, representing growth of 32%. We incurred net losses of $1.0 million and $6.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, respectively”

I have not looked at the financials, but equity compensation to employees can often be vesting at a significant higher rate around the time of an IPO and push an otherwise profitable company into a short-term net loss.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#58

Post by autarch »

m0zg wrote: post #48
eikenberry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were talking about switching if they got more expensive and rsync.net is already a lot more expensive unless you have very little data (<300GB).

It's not just that. It's also that I don't really trust anything centralized anymore, and internet speeds are such that homegrown solutions are becoming more and more attractive. Another benefit is that I'll also be able to easily backup my Linux machines, which BB currently does not support. At the moment I just periodically copy data to windows on cron so that it's backed up - not ideal to say the least.

I back things up to Backblaze B2 from Linux using borg. It works really well and it's incredibly cheap. I'm paying less than $1/month to keep about 155GB of data there. About half the data is from Borg backups, the other is rcloned copies of my music files.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#60

Post by qeternity »

jonas21 wrote: post #54
gruez wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, what gives? I remember they prided themselves on being profitable, self-funded and not beholden to VCs. Sure enough, I was able to confirm that with a quick search: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15074289 >Finally, Backblaze is profoundly different than CrashPlan in that we never really raised any bank financing or VC financing. We're 90% employee owned, and there are no deep pockets. CrashPlan raised som…

They didn't say they were profitable - they said they were cash-flow positive. And if you look at the cash flow statement in the S-1, they were indeed cash-flow positive in 2019. It looks like much of the difference comes down to stock-based compensation. This doesn't cost the company any cash, but under GAAP, it has to be recorded as an expense. (IANAA, so take what I say with a grain of salt).

Backblaze was tweeting about being profitable as late as 2020: https://twitter.com/backblaze/status/1242481625004273665
Post reply on HN