Well, let’s review. You have already stated that Carbonite cannot currently meet my needs so it’s out of the running. That makes you simply an expert in the field, doesn’t it?

 

Oh yes, I do blog. That’s just another reason why I say what I mean and mean what I say. I am quite real, with quite real requirements. So far, only Mozy seems to get close to them, but you know the market far better than I ever will.

 

Right now, I’m trying Mozy. But, time will tell.

 

 

You’ll have to tell me!  I can see it on the blogs now: “Carbonite CEO recommends competitor’s product.”  J

 

 

 

So, now that you really know my usage model, which of your competitors would you recommend? (Hey, I can’t imagine a more honest observer under the circumstances.)

 

 

Good points, and thanks again for your thinking on this complicated issue. 

 

Dave

 

 

 

I am struck how our two topics of conversation are converging. You don’t like caps, but that is really what cellular carriers do in practice. The paragraph you cite indicates that AT&T will simply give you a surcharge if you exceed the cap, but that’s not what happens. In practice, if you exceed your limit more than once or twice, your contract is terminated with cause. If you don’t believe me, please listen to past podcasts of Mobile Tech Roundup. The explanation the carriers give is that these data hogs are abusing and overtaxing the networks. That should seem very familiar to you!

 

You don’t like caps, but I think the current Carbonite plan is crying out to be gamed. As I’ve said, l could easily game Carbonite by writing a script to copy my 115GB Music folder to the internal drive in, say, 50GB chunks. As long as the client sees the files in each chunk within every 60 days, your server would obediently maintain a virtual archive. Of course you know what I mean, but we would both rather see a business model where laptop users can back up what they need to without breaking you. I think that means tiering, like it or not.

 

 

Scott: I’m really glad you turned me on to the AT&T pricing, because their wording is actually very interesting.  They are not saying that they will shut you off if you hit 5GB, but it gives them the right to impose additional charges (unspecified) provided that they also give you time to leave first.   I don’t like the idea of a hard cap because your backup just stops working, and that’s a poor user experience.   What I would like to do is find a way to gently limit our exposure to people who are using far more than 150GB.   These serious abusers are very small in number but are huge money losers for us. 

 

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. 

 

 

 

I started to say AT&T is notorious, but the truth is that all US carriers are equally bad. In fact, Verizon recently had to stop saying “unlimited” to avoid legal Hell. I was fortunate enough to have a Verizon manager appeal to Corporate to double my limit to 10 GB for medical reasons (which they no longer do).

 

I have already described my own mode of how I might use Carbonite. If we expand my model to talk about laptop users in general, it is easy to say they don’t use external drives. But wait, isn’t that an iPhone you have? If you connect an iPhone to a Windows machine, it is an external drive. A external drive with a lot of valuable data, and iTunes only backs up what they sell you. If you have a digital camera (I have two), those pictures really can’t live inside your laptop. A laptop is a lot like a city’s downtown, it is a nexus of activity. However, there isn’t room for much of the data it uses to actually live there! As a result, a laptop becomes a city where the suburbs come and go as needed. Maybe one model is to figure out a way to protect those “suburbs.” You mentioned that you break even at 150GB for $5/mo., and perhaps that should be telling you something. Maybe you should/could sell Carbonite optionally in 150GB chunks. This isn’t necessarily tiering, because you’re focusing on EXTERNAL drives. Your current product covers the internal drives so what I just came up with would be a bolt-on. Indeed, it could be a product users could buy multiples of, much like tiers.

 Cabonite made this week’s episode of Security Now. Check it out.

 

Hmmm.  I did not know that.  I will look at my AT&T contract.  I’m sure I did my initial backup of about 50GB at my desk, so that would have gone over wi-fi.  But most of the time now I’m on AT&T, but the incremental backups daily are pretty minor. 

 

I think what we may need is something in that $100/yr range, as you suggest Scott.  It probably should be capped at some number, but have no restrictions in terms of the drives that would be backed up.   The new product I alluded to, Carbonite Pro, will be coming out in Nov but it is really aimed at businesses, not individuals, so I don’t think it would be a good fit for you.   It seems to me that we need both an entry-level consumer product and one that is a step up for users who need more speed, support for external drives,  and perhaps a premium level of customer support.  I’d be interested in what you think would make sense. 

Dave

 

 

 

None of the carriers are truly “unlimited.” Read your fine print and you’ll find a 5 GB cap.  

 

 

Scott:  Interesting suggestion, but not sure what’s so bad about backing up on EVDO?  I have AT&T for my laptop and back up stuff on the network all the time without any difficulty.   Is your data service metered?  Mine is unlimited, so there’s no cost.  And since Carbonite basically sleeps when I’m typing on my laptop, it doesn’t interfere with browsing speed. 

 

Dave

 

 

 

David,

 

I suppose everyone has their own definition of what’s “economical.” I’m on very limited funds, and even I think your $50/yr. subscription price is obscenely low. I understand that you’re trying to attract customers, but there’s a price-point where you start attracting people who are unlikely to stay for a variety of reasons. I think you’re well below that. I would support both $100/yr. for 300 GB, and then additional tiers.

 

If I may switch topics slightly, there are some changes to your client that would really help laptop users. Most important would be the awareness of the type of internet connection. I’m typing this email on the road to a meeting, and I darn sure wouldn’t like Carbonite backing up stuff on EVDO unless I explicitly order it to. True, Carbonite can be disabled, but it’s actually designed to be forgotten.

 

Meanwhile, I really need to back up that USB drive. Can you offer any ETA on your new product?

 

Scott

 

 

Scott:  The policy is 60 days.   If you delete a file on your PC, we delete it 60 days later.  That gives you plenty of time to change your mind or download the file to another PC using Remote File Access.  If your whole computer is disconnected from Carbonite, i.e., there is no explicit Windows file deletion, we store the files for as long as your subscription lasts. 

 

You’re correct that we should be moving to an archival model, and that is indeed on the roadmap.   However, it just doesn’t work economically with an “unlimited” pricing plan.  Just like any all-you-can-eat plan, your economics are based on averages – you’re always going to lose money on a small percentage of users.  In the case of archiving, large users would so skew the formula that everyone would have to be charged substantially more money, and we would no longer be competitive with vendors who offer tiered pricing.  All the giant users would migrate to us, and the bulk of the average users would migrate to a competitor. 

Dave

 

 

 

David,

 

I am amused to think of Leo paying for the terabytes he backs up! However, your response raises a very interesting and important issue. You say that you’re currently only in the “back up” business, meaning that Carbonite mirrors protected files on internal permanent drives. Very well, but what happens when a file is deleted locally? How long does it take for your client to report the deletion, and then, for your servers to delete the backup? The various comments from Leo in his multitude of podcasts suggest that he uses Carbonite as short-term archiving. Indeed, the distinction between a “back up” and an archive is fuzzy and entirely dependent on the answers to the above questions.

 

In essence, I’m suggesting that those questions have to be answered the same way regardless of a file’s location. After all, Windows doesn’t care where your Documents folder is, so why should Carbonite? Your concerns are valid, but they are equally valid for internal drives. If you have folder X on an internal drive, you can swap files into and out of it. Of course, Carbonite will eventually delete files that aren’t in X presently so why should a USB drive be any different? A drive really is just a folder on steroids.

 

In my case, 250 GB would be plenty. Even 150 GB would be enough, if I can pick the files. But, why should anyone tell me what I can safe-guard? I suppose that’s an argument for tiering. You see, once you get past exceptions like Leo who are drowning in bandwidth, you see a much drier landscape. We have bandwidth, but nowhere near what the San Francisco and New York pundits assume is the norm. Those people who think it’s time for IPTV are in for a wait. Most of America is a good piece below the cloud so ubiquitous real-time cloud-based services are a pipe-dream for us (literally), and will be for the near future. If Carbonite wishes to be relevant in more than a few places, I think you must shift to an archival model because average users simply don’t have the bandwidth to make “cloud” back ups worthwhile. Restoring any large amount of data would be painful.

 

Scott

 

 

Hi, guys.   There’s a technical issue and a commercial issue.  Leo is exactly right about the $5/mo.   We already lose money on a small percentage of our users, and that’s the price we pay in order to make it really easy for everyone.  However, we don’t want to make the economics any worse than necessary or we’d have to raise prices for everyone.  A small number of users already use a highly disproportionate amount of our storage.   The alternative would be to charge by the gigabyte like most of our competitors do, or simply shut off your backup without notice if you get too big, as one of our “unlimited” competitors does.  There’s no free lunch, and none of us can afford to back up more than about 150GBs without losing money at $5/mo.   In a few months we will have a new product on the market that will backup USB external drives, NAS, and any other lettered drives.  But pricing will be tiered by the GB, not unlimited.  I’m sure people will buy one license and back up all their PCs, and that’s fine. 

 

Regarding USB drives, here’s why we don’t back them up today:  What should we do when the drive is unplugged?  Do we assume that the data is deleted and so delete the backup?  If not, then we are essentially archiving the data, not backing it up.  If we don’t delete data when you unplug the drive, someone could fill up an external drive, load it up to Carbonite, erase the drive and fill it up with other data, and repeat.   This is not what we’re getting paid to do and it wouldn’t make any economic sense at all.   If we’re charging you by the GB, then of course we’re happy to archive as well as back up. 

 

Hope that answers the question.  

 

Dave

 

David Friend | Chairman & CEO
Carbonite, Inc. | 177 Huntington Ave., 15th Floor | Boston, MA | 02115
Office: 617-587-1110 | Fax: 617-587-1101
www.carbonite.com  

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.1/2407 - Release Date: 10/01/09 18:23:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2409 - Release Date: 10/02/09 06:46:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2409 - Release Date: 10/03/09 06:20:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2409 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00