6 ms·

15 GB of storage would be nice. Go to the "Simple Pricing" page. Click the 0-999 GB for 2 cents/GB link. That's great pricing. Select 15 GB. Get message tell

15 GB of storage would be nice. Go to the "Simple Pricing" page. Click the 0-999 GB for 2 cents/GB link. That's great pricing. Select 15 GB. Get message telling me the minimum is 500 GB. That's not the kind of company I'm going to trust with my data. What other kind of BS are they going to try to pull if they're willing to do something like this before I'm even a customer? Maybe they don't want small customers like me. That's okay. Just be honest about it on your website.

lixtra 7y ago
From a UX perspective the first button shouldn’t read “0-9999 GB”, but “< 1 TB”. Otherwise I don’t see a problem with a minimum of 500GB to keep things efficient. On the other hand I believe there is a micro market waiting, paying 1-3 usd/month for 15GB.
- throwaway8941 7y ago
  You can already have something like this for free with Yandex Disk or Google Drive. rclone will let you mount the so called "cloud storage" locally and will encrypt everything you upload (be aware that encryption has to be configured separately as a remote on top of existing remote).
- cirrrrrrus 7y ago
  Well, 9999GB is closer to 10TB than to 1TB.
  - knorker 7y ago
    They meant <10TB, and were commenting on the fact that the range started with 0 when actually it starts at 500.
jsty 7y ago
Billing 30 cents is unlikely to even cover their credit card handling fees, let alone the cost of actually providing the service.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deaddodo 7y ago
I mean, 30 cents/mo is more than the overhead it would require to maintain your account + customer service. They could probably be more clear about minimums, but the minimum isn't unreasonable.
- juped 7y ago
  I seriously doubt this is the case. That's not how overhead works. Amortized across all users of the service, it will be well under 30 cents per user-month for this kind of service.
  - rsync 7y ago
    It's not a customer overhead issue - or, rather, that's not the computation we're doing. It's a payment processing issue - if a payment costs 20-30 cents per process, plus the percentage (which can get eye-poppingly large when people use rewards cards) we can't, then, charge people 40 or 90 or 110 cents per month. As I have mentioned elsewhere, however, if this is a showstopper for you, just email info@rsync.net and we'll figure out a way to give you a 100 GB (or whatever) account that you pay annually or something.
rsync 7y ago
"That's not the kind of company I'm going to trust with my data. What other kind of BS are they going to try to pull if they're willing to do something like this before I'm even a customer?" I am sorry if that is confusing - it is not in any way meant to be a dark pattern or misleading. We can't charge people, for instance, 30 cents per month (as in your example) - the fees or processing your card (or paypal payment) would be larger than that. The minimum order of 500 GB computes to $10 per month. If you have a very tight budget, please email info@rsync.net and I will personally figure out a way (annual payment, whatever) to make it work for you. It will be larger than 15 GB, however, unless you want to pay 5 years in advance. I was just about to change the wording on the pricing page to be "500-9999 GB" but that's even more confusing, IMO ... I think most people understand that processing fees dictate a minimum order ...
- sithadmin 7y ago
  >We can't charge people, for instance, 30 cents per month (as in your example) - the fees or processing your card (or paypal payment) would be larger than that. You can - you just need to eliminate the card processing from most transactions in these cases. Allow users to top up a balance with a minimum buy-in that meets your processing threshold, and decrement that balance as services are consumed. This does require some degree of effort in terms of implementation and accounting, but it drastically increases the appeal of your service to small businesses and personal users.
  - evilotto 7y ago
    tarsnap does something like that - https://www.tarsnap.com/ https://www.tarsnap.com/
  - pfranz 7y ago
    > This does require some degree of effort in terms of implementation and accounting I feel like you're really downplaying what would be involved. It is a great suggestion, but the effort to manage and implement doesn't sound trivial. Personally, the few systems that exclusively use this model drive me nuts. Instead of just paying for what I want I have to add to this account, then pay for what I want. For the business owner, they now have to account for and secure new account balances. At a large scale (Starbucks has $1.6 billion [1]), you can likely cover any additional regulatory and accounting costs and also make money. On a small scale it can be a liability that costs more than it brings in. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/jp_koning/status/1160387043790413824 https://mobile.twitter.com/jp_koning/status/1160387043790413...
andrewmunsell 7y ago
Wasabi was the same way when I was trying to find a secondary cloud to host personal backups. $6 /mo minimum storage charge, and they have a 90 day minimum. That, combined with the free trial ending as soon as I put my credit card in meant they tried charging me $18 for the GB of test data I uploaded... I should have read the fine print more closely, apparently.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lixtra 7y ago

From a UX perspective the first button shouldn’t read “0-9999 GB”, but “< 1 TB”. Otherwise I don’t see a problem with a minimum of 500GB to keep things efficient. On the other hand I believe there is a micro market waiting, paying 1-3 usd/month for 15GB.

throwaway8941 7y ago
You can already have something like this for free with Yandex Disk or Google Drive. rclone will let you mount the so called "cloud storage" locally and will encrypt everything you upload (be aware that encryption has to be configured separately as a remote on top of existing remote).
cirrrrrrus 7y ago
Well, 9999GB is closer to 10TB than to 1TB.
- knorker 7y ago
  They meant <10TB, and were commenting on the fact that the range started with 0 when actually it starts at 500.

jsty 7y ago

Billing 30 cents is unlikely to even cover their credit card handling fees, let alone the cost of actually providing the service.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deaddodo 7y ago

I mean, 30 cents/mo is more than the overhead it would require to maintain your account + customer service. They could probably be more clear about minimums, but the minimum isn't unreasonable.

juped 7y ago
I seriously doubt this is the case. That's not how overhead works. Amortized across all users of the service, it will be well under 30 cents per user-month for this kind of service.
- rsync 7y ago
  It's not a customer overhead issue - or, rather, that's not the computation we're doing. It's a payment processing issue - if a payment costs 20-30 cents per process, plus the percentage (which can get eye-poppingly large when people use rewards cards) we can't, then, charge people 40 or 90 or 110 cents per month. As I have mentioned elsewhere, however, if this is a showstopper for you, just email info@rsync.net and we'll figure out a way to give you a 100 GB (or whatever) account that you pay annually or something.

rsync 7y ago

"That's not the kind of company I'm going to trust with my data. What other kind of BS are they going to try to pull if they're willing to do something like this before I'm even a customer?" I am sorry if that is confusing - it is not in any way meant to be a dark pattern or misleading. We can't charge people, for instance, 30 cents per month (as in your example) - the fees or processing your card (or paypal payment) would be larger than that. The minimum order of 500 GB computes to $10 per month. If you have a very tight budget, please email info@rsync.net and I will personally figure out a way (annual payment, whatever) to make it work for you. It will be larger than 15 GB, however, unless you want to pay 5 years in advance. I was just about to change the wording on the pricing page to be "500-9999 GB" but that's even more confusing, IMO ... I think most people understand that processing fees dictate a minimum order ...

sithadmin 7y ago
>We can't charge people, for instance, 30 cents per month (as in your example) - the fees or processing your card (or paypal payment) would be larger than that. You can - you just need to eliminate the card processing from most transactions in these cases. Allow users to top up a balance with a minimum buy-in that meets your processing threshold, and decrement that balance as services are consumed. This does require some degree of effort in terms of implementation and accounting, but it drastically increases the appeal of your service to small businesses and personal users.
- evilotto 7y ago
  tarsnap does something like that - https://www.tarsnap.com/ https://www.tarsnap.com/
- pfranz 7y ago
  > This does require some degree of effort in terms of implementation and accounting I feel like you're really downplaying what would be involved. It is a great suggestion, but the effort to manage and implement doesn't sound trivial. Personally, the few systems that exclusively use this model drive me nuts. Instead of just paying for what I want I have to add to this account, then pay for what I want. For the business owner, they now have to account for and secure new account balances. At a large scale (Starbucks has $1.6 billion [1]), you can likely cover any additional regulatory and accounting costs and also make money. On a small scale it can be a liability that costs more than it brings in. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/jp_koning/status/1160387043790413824 https://mobile.twitter.com/jp_koning/status/1160387043790413...

andrewmunsell 7y ago

Wasabi was the same way when I was trying to find a secondary cloud to host personal backups. $6 /mo minimum storage charge, and they have a 90 day minimum. That, combined with the free trial ending as soon as I put my credit card in meant they tried charging me $18 for the GB of test data I uploaded... I should have read the fine print more closely, apparently.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]