SpiderOak Unlimited Space

[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.

[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).

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

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).

[Jibz]

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).

That is true. I never considered the CrashPlan family plan, or the multiple device support of SpiderOak, very useful, since they both allow all clients to access all the backed up data of each other. I would not want to install that on computers I do not directly control.

But if you only have two computers, then $120 for 2xCrashPlan is still cheaper than $150, and you will have separate backup passwords.

[Jibz]

On the subject of unlimited storage:

https://blog.onedrive.com/onedrive_changes/

Since we started to roll out unlimited cloud storage to Office 365 consumer subscribers, a small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings. In some instances, this exceeded 75 TB per user or 14,000 times the average.

So, apparently 75 TB > Unlimited.

[x16wda]

75 TB

How long would it take to upload 75TB of data?!?!?

[eleman]

75 TB

How long would it take to upload 75TB of data?!?!?

A limited amount of time.

[Stoic Joker]

On the subject of unlimited storage:

https://blog.onedrive.com/onedrive_changes/

Since we started to roll out unlimited cloud storage to Office 365 consumer subscribers, a small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings. In some instances, this exceeded 75 TB per user or 14,000 times the average.

So, apparently 75 TB > Unlimited.

What the hell is wrong with people?!? That's just absurd.

I did however have pause for mild panic when reading this:

•Free OneDrive storage will decrease from 15 GB to 5 GB for all users, current and new. The 15 GB camera roll storage bonus will also be discontinued. These changes will start rolling out in early 2016.

But it appears - assuming that it's already in effect - that it did not effect those of us with the early adopters 25GB bonus storage...as I'm still showing the space as available.

It truly is aggravating when a few idiots fail to use a little common sense, self police their actions, and screw it up for everybody.

[eleman]

It truly is aggravating when a few idiots fail to use a little common sense, self police their actions, and screw it up for everybody.

So advertising a service as "unlimited" is OK; but trying to see if it really is unlimited is not?

[IainB]

...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...
____________________

Regarding Microsoft's apparent turnabout regarding OneDrive max storage limits, at least they gave a useful explanation (even if one might not like or agree with it), so, hats off to them for that.

[Jibz]

•Free OneDrive storage will decrease from 15 GB to 5 GB for all users, current and new. The 15 GB camera roll storage bonus will also be discontinued. These changes will start rolling out in early 2016.

But it appears - assuming that it's already in effect - that it did not effect those of us with the early adopters 25GB bonus storage...as I'm still showing the space as available.

In your quote it says that change will start rolling out in 2016, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

[Stoic Joker]

It truly is aggravating when a few idiots fail to use a little common sense, self police their actions, and screw it up for everybody.

So advertising a service as "unlimited" is OK; but trying to see if it really is unlimited is not?

75TB?? Yeah, that's more than just a little past curiosity. Any "unlimited" plan is really just a statistical assumption that everyone's behavior will average out to something that the infrastructure can tolerate. And that's generally speaking a workable plan if nobody decides to be a smartass and push it past the limits of reason.

I'm on a 40Mb symmetrical fiber connection, at my house ... But if I tried pushing anywhere close to 5TB up the wire I'd end up having a very unpleasant conversation with my ISP. So... 75TB!!! That had to have come from some clown on a commercial connection, because there's no way in hell a - classically upstream capped for a reason... - residential provider would have tolerated that volume of traffic coming from a single IP.

[Stoic Joker]

•Free OneDrive storage will decrease from 15 GB to 5 GB for all users, current and new. The 15 GB camera roll storage bonus will also be discontinued. These changes will start rolling out in early 2016.

But it appears - assuming that it's already in effect - that it did not effect those of us with the early adopters 25GB bonus storage...as I'm still showing the space as available.

In your quote it says that change will start rolling out in 2016, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

Shit! ...I missed that. This is why pragmatism is the best I can do ... I always get burned when I try to think positive.

[eleman]

It truly is aggravating when a few idiots fail to use a little common sense, self police their actions, and screw it up for everybody.

So advertising a service as "unlimited" is OK; but trying to see if it really is unlimited is not?

75TB?? Yeah, that's more than just a little past curiosity. Any "unlimited" plan is really just a statistical assumption that everyone's behavior will average out to something that the infrastructure can tolerate. And that's generally speaking a workable plan if nobody decides to be a smartass and push it past the limits of reason.

If we're counting smartasses, the first one was to use the term "unlimited" to label a service which he/she never intended to make "unlimited", but just a statistical gimmick.

[f0dder]

It truly is aggravating when a few idiots fail to use a little common sense, self police their actions, and screw it up for everybody.

If you're in reality not going to offer unlimited storage, stop your marking drones from trying to gain goodwill with their usual lies. Simple as that.

I'm on a 40Mb symmetrical fiber connection, at my house ... But if I tried pushing anywhere close to 5TB up the wire I'd end up having a very unpleasant conversation with my ISP. So... 75TB!!! That had to have come from some clown on a commercial connection, because there's no way in hell a - classically upstream capped for a reason... - residential provider would have tolerated that volume of traffic coming from a single IP.

Depends on provider. There's plenty of ISPs in Denmark that don't have silly caps, and give you the flatrate you pay for - including high-speed fibre providers.

The thing that worries me most about this change of policy isn't really the change of policy, but the emphasis in the quote:

Since we started to roll out unlimited cloud storage to Office 365 consumer subscribers, a small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings. In some instances, this exceeded 75 TB per user or 14,000 times the average.

Care to guess why I find that part troubling?

[mwb1100]

So advertising a service as "unlimited" is OK; but trying to see if it really is unlimited is not?

They are changing their policy - it was unlimited, now it won't be and they won't advertise it as such (at least that how I read things).

This change is obviously irritating and inconvenient for people who were taking advantage of large amounts of space, but I don't see anything deceptive about it. In fact they're being quite upfront about it. They offered unlimited storage, found they couldn't sustain it and have changed their policy as  result.

[wraith808]

So advertising a service as "unlimited" is OK; but trying to see if it really is unlimited is not?

They are changing their policy - it was unlimited, now it won't be and they won't advertise it as such (at least that how I read things).

This change is obviously irritating and inconvenient for people who were taking advantage of large amounts of space, but I don't see anything deceptive about it. In fact they're being quite upfront about it. They offered unlimited storage, found they couldn't sustain it and have changed their policy as  result.

This.

The thing that worries me most about this change of policy isn't really the change of policy, but the emphasis in the quote:

Since we started to roll out unlimited cloud storage to Office 365 consumer subscribers, a small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings. In some instances, this exceeded 75 TB per user or 14,000 times the average.

Care to guess why I find that part troubling?

They can see what's in your drive?  Yes, many of these 'services' can.  Especially for de-duping.  The big row over that happened a while ago.

[Stoic Joker]

So advertising a service as "unlimited" is OK; but trying to see if it really is unlimited is not?

They are changing their policy - it was unlimited, now it won't be and they won't advertise it as such (at least that how I read things).

This change is obviously irritating and inconvenient for people who were taking advantage of large amounts of space, but I don't see anything deceptive about it. In fact they're being quite upfront about it. They offered unlimited storage, found they couldn't sustain it and have changed their policy as  result.

Which is precisely what I was driving at, albeit tangentially. The provider couldn't sustain it because of a few bad apples that just wanted to push the issue past the point of reason. 75TB is ridiculous to start with...and their talking about people that were exceeding 75TB...by an implied factor of wow!

This is why we have such an idiotically convoluted legal system, full of bizarrely worded laws, and lawyers that we'd like to see shot. Everybody just wants to play word games looking for loopholes in everything so they can be right about dumb shit ... instead of just trying to be reasonable to start with.

[eleman]

So advertising a service as "unlimited" is OK; but trying to see if it really is unlimited is not?

They are changing their policy - it was unlimited, now it won't be and they won't advertise it as such (at least that how I read things).

This change is obviously irritating and inconvenient for people who were taking advantage of large amounts of space, but I don't see anything deceptive about it. In fact they're being quite upfront about it. They offered unlimited storage, found they couldn't sustain it and have changed their policy as  result.

Which is precisely what I was driving at, albeit tangentially. The provider couldn't sustain it because of a few bad apples that just wanted to push the issue past the point of reason. 75TB is ridiculous to start with...and their talking about people that were exceeding 75TB...by an implied factor of wow!

This is why we have such an idiotically convoluted legal system, full of bizarrely worded laws, and lawyers that we'd like to see shot. Everybody just wants to play word games looking for loopholes in everything so they can be right about dumb shit ... instead of just trying to be reasonable to start with.

So you say 75TB is unreasonable. Let's look at this from your point of view: No worries then. The changes don't affect you. They don't offer an "unlimited" plan anymore, but you already state a will not to go for "unlimited" anyway, claiming it would be unreasonable. Why the fuss about "bad apples?" The only ones who would be affected by this change are the "bad apples".

[Stoic Joker]

Its a very simple concept. Most people if left to their own devices do just fine. However there are those self appointed extra special people that insist on steaming past the razor edge of ragged reason...just because they can. Once enough of these extra special people congregate on any place or issue the end result is always the same. There is much cracking down and rule making that results in it sucking for everyone.

So if you really want to push with sanctimonious and righteous indignation the sanctity of the all encompassing nature of the word unlimited. Then by god I should perfectly justified in making a backup copy of the entire internet...and just to be sure I get My true, honest, and complete value that I paid for FFS ...So as a steam past a gazillion Petabytes for the umpteenth time like some maniacal Dr. Seuss character... I should be granted cart blanc to make 80,000 copies of said entire god damn internet because I was told I get unlimited storage space damnit!


...Or maybe I could just be reasonable.

[eleman]

...Or maybe I could just be reasonable.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. [George Bernard Shaw]

[Stoic Joker]

Well, I guess if George Bernard Shaw thinks that acting like an asshole is the best - and only - way to achieve progress...then I guess I betted get on the stick and do my part.

I think I'll strip naked, run down the hall...and shit on the bosses desk..

...Or just maybe not all goals are a good idea.

[f0dder]

They can see what's in your drive?  Yes, many of these 'services' can.  Especially for de-duping.  The big row over that happened a while ago.

And it's something that should be complained about again and again and...