I don't think their blog post was stupid. I think they were right about unlimited plans not being a viable business model without restrictions. In fact, their stances on zero-knowledge and unlimited plans were part of what made them stand out from the competition.
I find it amusing that they would offer unlimited plans anyway, and wonder what restrictions they will have to impose (I guess limited availability and price point for a start).
This may be a very bright red warning lamp. They will be unlikely to be doing this out of generosity. It's a risky market and highly competitive, with low margins, necessitating high volumes of business to survive. Doing an about-face on their earlier firm guidelines for a viable business model might well indicate that their business model has proven infeasible and is haemorrhaging (making a loss) and that they are anticipating going under if there is no change. Desperate times sometimes require desperate remedies, so reversing their earlier commitment and presenting an enticing loss-leader offer may be a panic attempt to bump up the business volume and change things for the better, or at least reduce the haemorrhage.
For example, there was evidence of instability in similar survival mode reactions in Wuala and Tresorit, and I stopped relying on backup in either of them as soon as I saw the tell-tale warning signs. Wuala has gone under and Tresorit is probably currently struggling to survive. I was also wondering whether Mega was stable, after studying the significant changes of shareholder ownership there.
Given that experience, if I were a SpiderOak customer, then right now I'd be rapidly making sure that I was no longer dependent on SpiderOak for anything
- and then cancel my contract - and I certainly wouldn't be spending more
on them after they have just done an about-face on their earlier statements. You can't trust
a commercial operation you have a contract with if they make nonsensical and unilateral changes like that and without any explanation.
If one did
spend more on them regardless, then one could well be at risk of throwing good money after bad.