| > ... I can set a permission which does not allow data to be deleted. That is, if a hacker somehow gains access to my server, she cannot delete all the existing backups. With GCP/AWS, you can copy and paste a bucket ACL that only allows PUT operations, and enable versioning to ensure nothing can ever be deleted by overwrites. With tarsnap there is one person who can delete all your existing backups - Colin, because he owns the bucket. And he will for sure within 7 days of your account falling below a $0 balance.[1] That might be a feature in case you got killed in a car accident and you want some secret to be buried forever. But for me, I'm archiving my family photos/videos and I'd rather AWS keep charging my account and keep my data alive until my estate can sort out my digital data, which could take months. > it might still make sense for Colin to triple the price of Tarsnap in order to maximise the income from existing users And there's the rub. I don't like the idea of somebody holding my data hostage. I'll gladly contribute to a Patreon if an open source developer needs recurring support. [1]: https://www.tarsnap.com/faq.html#out-of-money |
1. What are the benefits and market size of Tarsnap compared to other backup solutions like BorgBackup + GCP?
2. Would Tarsnap make more profit it it raised its prices?
We seem to be arguing about question 1, but Patrick's advice to Colin is about question 2. Earlier you pointed out that Tarsnap is 25 times more expensive than GCP which indicates that Tarsnap's target market is not very price-sensitive. If Tarsnap doubled its prices for new customers would the rate of new signups really drop by more than 50%?