On Wed, Mar 6, 2024, at 4:03 AM, Scott Wheeler wrote: > >> To me the audience for Tarsnap is the privacy minded part of the public. >> Having payment details on file sort of contradicts the mission. That's (I'm >> guessing) why tarsnap is 100% pre-paid. >> >> You're free not to use it, or create your own process for regularly topping >> up the balance. Heck, you could even put $50 there and probably have a >> lifetime of storage (it's been a while since I used tarsnap, but back when >> it was /dirt cheap/ and I imagine storage costs have not increased >> significantly over time. > > You’re free to think that, but my company has spent thousands (perhaps over > $10k at this point?) on Tarsnap, so I don’t have a bad feeling saying, “I > love the service, but this part I find kind of dumb” is out of the range of > reasonable customer feedback. It’s reasonable to keep in mind that there > are different kinds of customers on this list, and that for some of us $50 is > not what we’re talking about. I suspect what pays Collin’s rent are the > customers that pay that much every month. > > -Scott
I don't suspect there is much of a profit margin, but let's not argue things we hardly can know¹. I agree this is valid feedback. I also took it seriously by providing what I think is reasonable explanation. I will remind you that calling a missing feature "insane" is not usually part of "reasonable customer feedback", so I might have been a little more curt in my response just to balance things out. There you go, Peace ¹ I half-remember Colin writing about this many years ago but (a) I'm not searching for it (b) things may have changed over time
