

Ask HN: DIY storage or not? - terpua

We have developed a generic syncing app (web, desktop, mobile) on top of cloud storage (S3 initially).  We are moving to testing soon and can offer either a hosted version or let customers use their S3 account.  Which offering would you advice we focus and why?<p>Our thoughts:<p><pre><code>   1. Focusing on latter differentiates us
   2. Allows us to "plug" into future cloud storage (Goog, Msft, etc)
   3. However, not sure if market today is "too niche"
   4. Audience is individuals and businesses
</code></pre>
Thanks in advance.
======
groovyone
I'd offer a hosted version. Most people will not want to go about setting up
S3, dealing with private keys etc. Where's your market?

~~~
terpua
Our core focus will be businesses that want to control their own storage.

Is entering your S3 secret ID and key too cumbersome for most customers?

~~~
inovica
Yeah, I think it is too. As technical people its not a big deal for us, but
you should make it as easy as possible for people otherwise you'll lose the
business to a potentially inferior competitor who makes it nice and easy

------
MicahWedemeyer
Definitely go with hosted. Every account you force people to sign up for will
drop your user base by a ton. Would you be posting on Hacker News if you also
had to sign up for S3 (or give your current S3 account) in order to provide
storage for the comments?

In addition, storing their S3 credentials has all its own problems. Remember
that the AWS credentials are pretty powerful. If your database is compromised,
those keys could be used to drain peoples' bank accounts via Flexible Payment
System (FPS). Handle AWS credentials as you would a credit card number, which
means avoid at all costs!

------
anamax
I suspect that folks who have an S3 account today are sophisticated enough
that they'll undervalue your value-add. Moreover, folks who don't have an S3
account don't know your storage costs.

FWIW, "control my own storage" is overhead for almost everyone; it is overhead
that they'll pay to avoid.

------
blogimus
_We are moving to testing soon and can offer either a hosted version or let
customers use their S3 account. Which offering would you advice we focus and
why?_

Is there something that precludes you from offering the option to use either
(or even both), like development time?

~~~
terpua
We wanted to focus on one option. Having both initially takes more dev time,
support, different marketing message, etc.

------
gaius
I trust you've read what Joel has to say on generic syncing apps:
<http://joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html>

So I would say, 3.

~~~
terpua
Yes, have read it and disagree. The act of syncing (sharing, backup,
versioning, access) has to be super easy to use (i.e. tied to the OS). The
problem with syncing apps in the past was they were hard to use so people
stuck with their USB drives, emailing themselves, etc. Dropbox comes to mind
as a syncing app that has made it easy to use.

Similarly, mp3 players weren't killer products until iPod came along :)

------
vaksel
if you can only do one option do the hosted version, you are in an information
bubble where most people you know use it, outside the valley most people never
heard of it.

\+ chances are if a person has an S3 account, they most likely have the
knowledge to do what you are doing themselves

------
perdurabo
Definitely go hosted. S3 is not fun or easy for most people to set up.

------
stcredzero
It is good to be the middleman!

