3 ms·

I can't judge how much it'll cost to back my iMac up. I have about 750Gb of data.

by pclark 17y ago

Willie_Dynamite 17y ago
You can't figure out what 750 * 0.15 comes to?
- joezydeco 17y ago
  Remember after June 30th it's also (750 * 0.15) to upload it.
- Frazzydee 17y ago
  Perhaps he is saying that the per-gig cost is not clear. It says buy now for $29, but the extra $0.15/GB/month to use S3 is hidden under "Why use S3?" (you might not expect costs to be there) We both know what S3 is, and know that they charge per gig. But the market of people who want online backups for their macs don't necessarily know this.
  - pclark 17y ago
    true, but this service is also incremental so it'll (in theory) backup more than 750Gb.
halostatue 17y ago
Lots. Roughly US$112.50 per month. CrashPlan and SpiderOak are better price value, although I might look at using this to have a secondary backup of critical items. Even that, for me, though, is about 200GB (photos & music) or about $30/mo.
rarrrrrr 17y ago
I'm a bit biased, but I don't feel S3 is the best possible fit for a frugal consumer's backup data. S3 is a high performance, general purpose solution capable of very low latency. Having that performance makes it more expensive than an archival specific solution, which tolerates latency just fine as long as high throughput is maintained. There's a reason why Mozy, Carbonite, SpiderOak, etc. all run our own data centers. I can sell a 100GB account for usable across unlimited computers for $50 per year and be profitable. That said, the market certainly has plenty of room for more backup choices, and any option to help people avoid data loss is a win. An exclusively Mac app seems like a good idea.
- sreitshamer 17y ago
  I agree. For me though, backup comes down to trust. I trust Amazon to provide the S3 service reliably. I find it harder to trust Mozy, Carbonite and the rest, partly because they don't even bother to restore my Mac files' metadata correctly.
mikepurvis 17y ago
I don't know how other people do it, but certainly for me, I have things that are at different levels of importance to me. And a lot of the most important are not really all that big, nor are they changing particularly frequently. I wouldn't pay a premium of $100 a month just for the convenience of having everything backed up in this super-redundant, universally-accessible way. I would happily use a product like Arq (or Time Machine) for my documents and current photos, to make sure the backup is always current, and then whenever the backup hits 50gb, move it over to an off-site drive (at work, a relative's house, even in a safety deposit box).

I can't judge how much it'll cost to back my iMac up. I have about 750Gb of data.

by pclark 17y ago

I can't judge how much it'll cost to back my iMac up. I have about 750Gb of data.

Willie_Dynamite 17y ago

You can't figure out what 750 * 0.15 comes to?

joezydeco 17y ago
Remember after June 30th it's also (750 * 0.15) to upload it.
Frazzydee 17y ago
Perhaps he is saying that the per-gig cost is not clear. It says buy now for $29, but the extra $0.15/GB/month to use S3 is hidden under "Why use S3?" (you might not expect costs to be there) We both know what S3 is, and know that they charge per gig. But the market of people who want online backups for their macs don't necessarily know this.
- pclark 17y ago
  true, but this service is also incremental so it'll (in theory) backup more than 750Gb.

halostatue 17y ago

Lots. Roughly US$112.50 per month. CrashPlan and SpiderOak are better price value, although I might look at using this to have a secondary backup of critical items. Even that, for me, though, is about 200GB (photos & music) or about $30/mo.

rarrrrrr 17y ago

I'm a bit biased, but I don't feel S3 is the best possible fit for a frugal consumer's backup data. S3 is a high performance, general purpose solution capable of very low latency. Having that performance makes it more expensive than an archival specific solution, which tolerates latency just fine as long as high throughput is maintained. There's a reason why Mozy, Carbonite, SpiderOak, etc. all run our own data centers. I can sell a 100GB account for usable across unlimited computers for $50 per year and be profitable. That said, the market certainly has plenty of room for more backup choices, and any option to help people avoid data loss is a win. An exclusively Mac app seems like a good idea.

sreitshamer 17y ago
I agree. For me though, backup comes down to trust. I trust Amazon to provide the S3 service reliably. I find it harder to trust Mozy, Carbonite and the rest, partly because they don't even bother to restore my Mac files' metadata correctly.

mikepurvis 17y ago

I don't know how other people do it, but certainly for me, I have things that are at different levels of importance to me. And a lot of the most important are not really all that big, nor are they changing particularly frequently. I wouldn't pay a premium of $100 a month just for the convenience of having everything backed up in this super-redundant, universally-accessible way. I would happily use a product like Arq (or Time Machine) for my documents and current photos, to make sure the backup is always current, and then whenever the backup hits 50gb, move it over to an off-site drive (at work, a relative's house, even in a safety deposit box).