First, I really dig the "Made with ♥ in Nashville, TN" footer. Way to have some pride. People need to pimp their non-SV residences more.
Second, I've been mulling over doing something like this. Since you're doing it already, please steal my idea. Make a connector for LightRoom and make it stupid simple to link a RAW with exported JPEGs.
0.04 /GB * 1000 = 40.00 /month (curr) = 480.00/yr
* 2000 = = 960.00/yr
* 3000 = = 1440.00/yr
0.004 /GB * 8000 = 32.00 /month (cold) = 344.00/yr + 48.00/yr/TB
1 shoot = 25GB (stills only) or 50GB w a 30 sec TL (add 25GB)
~100 shoots /yr ==> 2.5TB/yr @ 25GB, 5TB/yr @ 50GB
Without frequently juggling current to cold, or doing yearly compounding calculations, I'd eyeball this at ~$1300/yr, with growth of $150/yr, each year.
One way to make this more attractive is to leverage the online storage to build other recurring-revenue generating services, but most photographers don't go for that type of thing. (In my experience, stock image sites, etc. are primarily the realm of hobbyists.)
You also have the trust/confidence problem. I suspect every photographer will want to maintain their own backup as well. So, they won't "save" money (even if online storage was less expensive, but I suspect it's not) because they still need to pay for local storage. Of course, for apples to apples, you need to factor in time to maintain those backups, either my hourly rate or their own; things like disk-testing, data juggling (downsizing 1TB -> 3TB drives, etc.). But again, it's still 'extra' cost, because they won't (IMO) switch to solely online storage.
Are you providing tools to allow photographers to leverage their online storage? E.g. Dropbox-like sharing with clients (even just contact sheets?), integration against online print services, store-fronts for image sales, etc.?
All that said, I'm interested in seeing your private beta though. I think this can work, one day. :)
Is this in any way inspired by that? Or is this a coincidence?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5673628 see orofino
And in an even older thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4619132 see akmiller
Overall, your two biggest challenges are going to be convincing people they need backups (they still don't know, we tried) and pricing. Currently, Backblaze gives me unlimited backups for $5/month or less. With nearly half a terabyte of photos, it's cheaper for me to back up everything with them than use a service like this, which doesn't back up the rest of my stuff.
That said, I hope you guys can find a way to make it work!
I've signed up though. Email is similar to username ;-)
Though tbh I've begun recommending Flickr over Picasa. Better (significantly) 3rd-party app support, 1TB is more than the vast majority will use in a long time, and it's easy to default everything to private if desired.
But if you're uploading lots of photos there are lots of tools out there for only Flickr that put both web UIs to shame, automatically retry, etc. The Picasa application is... surprisingly decent, but I've had worlds of pain with its buggy syncing, and it gives off a feeling of almost-abandonware.
* JungleDisk https://www.jungledisk.com/
Arc supports encrypted backup to Amazon S3 and/or Glacier, works with occasionally connected external hard disks perfectly. I use this to backup RAW photos from Aperture stored on an external USB hard disk (at least 50GB worth).
mount -t ecryptfs ~/.photos-backup-crypted ~/photos-backup
rdiff-backup ~/photos ~/photos-backup
rsync -a --del ~/.photos-backup-crypted remote-server:photos-backup
What I wanted to do was mount EncFS in reverse mode (so it gets plain files and creates an encrypted virtual volume) and rdiff-backup that to a remote host, which works very well. However, the problem is that, when your directories are disparate, you can't easily make them appear as one directory, so, to back up 5 locations you'd have to do this 5 times.
I can fake it using AUFS or similar, but it's too large a dependency. Someone wrote an EncFS patch to let it follow symlinks in reverse mode (https://code.google.com/p/encfs/issues/detail?id=147), which would solve the problem, but I don't think EncFS is maintained any more.
Combined with a slow home connection, it basically never managed to upload all my files, and it could never resume. That's why I want to go the EncFS route, I don't care if file sizes and numbers are visible if it makes uploading resumable, sane and easier.
EDIT: Never mind, I just saw your other comment and learned about reverse mode. That's a simple but clever feature.
I would much prefer to write a small layer to glue EncFS and rdiff-backup together (and I started doing just that: https://github.com/skorokithakis/encrups), but I haven't managed to find an elegant solution for the directory aggregation yet.
Note that the second-to-last paragraph of Colin notes the possibility of tarnsap "glacializing" a complete machine dropping storage costs to 3~5c/GB/month, but it not be readable or deletable save by "deglazializing" the machine (15~20c/GB) to move the data to S3 for retrieval or deletion.
I'd be fine with something that's basically just "keep this data for me just in case all my other backup locations go down".
If we could test this that'd be great!