> You could have a disgruntled or mentally unbalanced employee.
The recent S3 outage was caused by a typo. You can plan around natural disasters and all sorts of things, but the vast majority of the time, data loss is caused by humans. Diversify where that data lives. We would never recommend that you should ONLY keep your backup in Backblaze. We should be part of your solution.
I think that if you do open other data centers you should charge extra for that in your pricing, optionally. While there could be negative marketing implications depending on the exact cost or how it's worded, I don't think it's an unreasonable approach. Since not everyone needs the diversity and it would make more sense (because it assumes your costs will go up) to not make all customers pay for something that they don't need because they have other plan b's. You might already be the plan c for some of your customers.
> We would never recommend that you should ONLY keep your backup in Backblaze
I am guessing (I haven't thoroughly checked so I could be wrong) that your marketing materials don't make this fact known in an obvious way. No issue with that but I think many non business users might not think of it this way.
As for the charging for geo-redundancy, it's something we've considered, but at least for now we like "clean" pricing where it's the same across the board. Might change in the future, but nothing to report now.
True - my point was more that accidents happen and often are caused by people. In this case there may not have been data loss, but monetary impact of sites going down was probably not insignificant.
The recent S3 outage was caused by a typo. You can plan around natural disasters and all sorts of things, but the vast majority of the time, data loss is caused by humans. Diversify where that data lives. We would never recommend that you should ONLY keep your backup in Backblaze. We should be part of your solution.