> Reducing the download cost is an attempt to get more people to see B2 as an S3 replacement, right? A price drop MIGHT open new markets to us. What those mar

> Reducing the download cost is an attempt to get more people to see B2 as an S3 replacement, right? A price drop MIGHT open new markets to us. What those markets are are kind of an internal debate at Backblaze. What we agree on is that we priced outbound bandwidth incorrectly when we launched B2. We know this for two reasons: A) The price Backblaze pays bandwidth is WAAAAAY lower than 5 cents per GByte. B) Almost nobody is choosing to use Backblaze as a CDN or website server or a large source of outbound data. One new market might be making B2 more attractive as a CDN or website server. It is my understanding that CDN customers use the CDN because of two things: 1) cheap download prices and 2) fault tolerance and reliability and distribution all over the world. Most CDNs charge about 2 cents/GByte or maybe a little more. If B2 outbound bandwidth prices drop below what CDNs charge, then SOME of their customers might consider B2 as one part of their solution. In my humble opinion we are still overpriced, but the reason we're dropping prices slowly is because we're slightly terrified of becoming too attractive too fast and not being able to handle the onslaught as the world abandons all the other CDNs and goes with B2 since we are so much cheaper. So we're going slowly at first while we ramp up, and then we can drop prices much more in the future as we gain comfort with serving up gigantic amounts of cached data. > Did Backblaze ever expand into its promised second datacenter? In the process of. Servers are sitting in the new datacenter powered up and talking with each other (and even have customer data on them), but we do not yet let customers choose which datacenter their data lands in (or choose to duplicate their data between).