Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

SpiderOak Unlimited Space

(1/7) > >>

Jibz:
I just received an email from SpiderOak offering unlimited space for $149 a year. Looking at their twitter feed, it seems this is something they offer every now and then as a special.

Perhaps a bit steep compared to the $60 CrashPlan charges, but since I already have a 1 TB plan for $129, I guess the jump is not that big. It's certainly better than 5 TB at $279 per year.

What made me chuckle was that I remembered a blog post of theirs from years ago. It seems they removed the old blog and all posts on it, but thankfully this is the internet, so nothing goes away:

In the wake of the news that Mozy is scrapping their ‘Unlimited’ data plans , I figured it would be apropos to write a post on: a) the reasoning behind why we at SpiderOak do not offer unlimited data plans; and b) why we believed early on that it was only a matter of time until our competitors changed their thinking on the unlimited storage plan concept.

...

Well, I personally believe that within 6 months to a year there will not be any unlimited storage providers left on the market; and should a few remain, very heavy restrictions on file size, file type and amount of devices allowed per account will be imposed (such as is already the case with many of the online backup providers).

In short: There is no such thing as a free lunch. If it looks too good to be true then it almost always is and In the end, we all have to pay the piper.

TLDR: Unlimited backup for a fixed price probably won’t be around for too much longer.
--- End quote ---

eleman:
We all have the right to be stupid , ergo, we should have the right to be forgotten.

On the other hand, being stupid has (and more often than not should have) consequences. Are we entitled to the shortcomings of human memory, or should a drunk night in college continue to haunt us even when we have grandkids?

I really don't know.

Jibz:
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).

IainB:
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).
-Jibz (October 29, 2015, 02:45 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.

mwb1100:
Perhaps a bit steep compared to the $60 CrashPlan charges
-Jibz (October 29, 2015, 01:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

Note that the $60 CrashPlan plan is for one computer. If you need support for more than one computer the cost of the plan is $149, same as the SpiderOak offer which supports multiple devices (afaik).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page