←back to thread

What I Would Do If I Ran Tarsnap

(www.kalzumeus.com)
801 points tnorthcutt | 5 comments | 03 Apr 14 16:33 UTC | HN request time: 1.304s | source
Show context
rsync ◴[03 Apr 14 16:58 UTC] No.7524164[source]▶
As someone who knows a little something about this business, and who has been excited and enthusiastic about tarsnap from day one, I hope Colin pays no attention to what you have written and continues to provide his service (note, I didn't say "run his business") just as he has.

I want to live in a world where tarsnap is sold for picodollars.

replies(4): >>7524205 #>>7524353 #>>7524595 #>>7525046 #
1. opendais ◴[03 Apr 14 17:45 UTC] No.7524595[source]▶
Wouldn't the best response to Patrick's post be to start a non-Geek brand [a B2B brand] for Tarsnap [under a different name] and sell it that way?
replies(1): >>7524978 #
2. mdda ◴[03 Apr 14 18:31 UTC] No.7524978[source]▶
Or (to play devil's advocate) for someone else to start a slick B2B brand that used tarsnap as a backend, and took all the surplus out of the middle...
replies(1): >>7525180 #
3. opendais ◴[03 Apr 14 19:01 UTC] No.7525180[source]▶
I'd rather the original creator be talked into a 'premium' B2B brand where he nets the profits. Then again, if refuses, I suppose there is nothing unethical with someone doing that.
replies(1): >>7530561 #
4. mdda ◴[04 Apr 14 11:27 UTC] No.7530561{3}[source]▶
I completely agree : But many people (including, possibly the original creator) would feel differently if (a) they chose not to take the advice, and everything remains the same ("I don't need that money"); and (b) someone else took all that surplus instead ("How dare they steal from me!"). Either way, the original creator's bottom-line is the same (probably higher in case (b) due to volume).

Another possibility would be for there to be an 'authorized' premium B2B version - where the original author gets a certain X% ownership, and the slick-marketing type does all the fluff/flashy stuff that adds value for that set of customers.

replies(1): >>7532646 #
5. opendais ◴[04 Apr 14 16:49 UTC] No.7532646{4}[source]▶
Well you are free to go ask :)