4 ms·

> Imagine if this service had launched 20 years ago. $10 would have bought you .. maybe 20MB? Pretty cheap to store that "forever" now. That's a good point, bu

> Imagine if this service had launched 20 years ago. $10 would have bought you .. maybe 20MB? Pretty cheap to store that "forever" now. That's a good point, but I don't think in their favor. At the rate that they're charging, you could prepay for 36 years of storage on S3 (neglecting bandwidth charges, which I know are substantial). Compounded with your point that data storage costs are tanking, I would actually expect $10 to go even further. Which is also not to mention that they're planning on paying for their costs on interest from their endowment. Turns out I can also put my money in something that generates a profit. I just don't see the point. They seem like they're trying to build S3 but without any profits, which at best makes them a marginally cheaper option, and at worst, a more expensive and less well featured S3.

rechristened 7y ago
They aren't building anything. They are storing data to S3, B2, and Internet Archive [1]. The fact that they are storing to multiple providers means that the costs should be higher than yourself just storing on one provider. That is before taking into consideration that the dividends on the trust need to meet the cost. The return on $10 needs to cover the costs of storing in S3 and B2. https://www.permanent.org/digital-archives/maintaining-accessibility/commercial-storage-partners/ https://www.permanent.org/digital-archives/maintaining-acces...
ValentineC 7y ago
> $10 would have bought you .. maybe 20MB? Pretty cheap to store that "forever" now. On a macro scale, 20MB is still pretty difficult to store "forever", especially if you need to involve a significant number of trusted people, over a long enough period of time (basically forever), to ensure that it's around.