Somewhat surprising move considering their earlier statement[1] on unlimited storage. Still, my renewal is coming up soon anyway, so the extra 25$ (against the 100$ annual for 100GB) doesn't seem like a bad deal.
So right now I'm backing up 80gb of data to Google Drive for $2 per month. Switching back to SpiderOak would allow me to add my media collection that I always considered too large to back up online.
But is this SpiderOak plan sustainable? Let's say the average person who gets this plan backs up 500 GB in the first month. Hard drives cost ~$0.04 per GB, so that would cost $40 to store assuming they store it on 2 drives. Let's double it since we're estimating, add a bit for bandwidth, and it seems doable.
As long as people don't keep backing up more and more year after year, that seems pretty sustainable, since they keep getting $125/year.
2 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 17.3 ms ] thread[1]https://spideroak.com/blog/20110202135038-whaaaat-unlimited-...
But is this SpiderOak plan sustainable? Let's say the average person who gets this plan backs up 500 GB in the first month. Hard drives cost ~$0.04 per GB, so that would cost $40 to store assuming they store it on 2 drives. Let's double it since we're estimating, add a bit for bandwidth, and it seems doable.
As long as people don't keep backing up more and more year after year, that seems pretty sustainable, since they keep getting $125/year.
I guess I should sign up.