TFA title seems odd. Article sez Backblaze has responded to the claims of "sham accounting" and (indirectly) to the claims that "customers backsups [are] at risk", yet the title wording implies that the backups are at risk as a consequence of BB responding.
What makes a company like this lose so much money? I'm paying 15$ a month for years for a tiny tiny bit of hard drive space. Where does all the money go? What's the big money sink with something like this?<p>I'm not doubting it, just would like to understand.
This is anecdotical, so take it with a pinch of salt, but I had a really bad experience with Backblaze, they lost ~80% of my files with no recourse for recovery.<p>They trust their pods too much and they fail in ways they cannot detect until you attempt to extract the data back.<p>If you use it, periodically download everything just to check it's still there.
I always held BackBlaze up as one of the very few companies that went from initial value proposition, to taking investor funding to going public without enshittification.<p>I don’t have an opinion on the current controversy. My issue with BackBlaze is that they haven’t been aggressive enough about <i>raising</i> prices to be profitable. I gladly give companies money to give me a service.<p>I no longer use their service. But only because I took my plex server down years ago and copied my media to my AWS Account (S3 Glacier Deep Archive).
Which backup services would folks here recommend to replace and/or supplement Backblaze? I have a lot of important files backed up there (photos, documents), some <i>only</i> there, so for the sake of redundancy I think it would make sense to find a second provider.