> Amazon starts at $0.15/GB and drops with more volume. Which has ALWAYS baffled me about Amazon's pricing. I would have thought they price it the REVERSE whe

> Amazon starts at $0.15/GB and drops with more volume. Which has ALWAYS baffled me about Amazon's pricing. I would have thought they price it the REVERSE where it is low price at first, and rises. For example, start with a "low introductory rate for the first Petabyte" to get small businesses addicted to Amazon services while Amazon still makes a (solid) profit, then when the small business grows into a large business that requires more than a Petabyte of data Amazon would increase the price because: 1) scaling is hard and does cost money, and 2) a company looks into the future and says "heck, if we reach a Petabyte we're making so much money we can AFFORD the higher Amazon rates", and 3) as a company grows quickly they have so many other problems they won't prioritize getting off Amazon, especially if Amazon is scaling well for them. Related side note: scaling really does cost extra money. For our online backup business, almost no customers have more than 10 million files in any one "backup" (each backup is "per laptop") so as programmers we can use any data structure we like to browse those files, a flat list IS FINE. But for B2, a large customer might have 1 billion files in one "bucket", and so we have to be a HECK of a lot smarter about how we organize that data so that the customer can still sign in with a web browser and view them all. For Backblaze, that meant moving up to a clustered hash database called Cassandra, and deploying (so far) about 50 1U computers, each with two CPUs, each with fast SSDs and a layer of complicated code to manage all of it. So the scaling requirements of the Personal Backup client required 0 extra servers, but at B2 scale it requires an additional $175,000 worth of equipment. Scale costs extra money.