Ask HN: DIY storage or not? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: DIY storage or not?

13 pointsterpua13 comments

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?

Our thoughts:

   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

Thanks in advance.

View on HN

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?

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?

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

Since one of the target market is businesses, I would assume they have at least 1 guy to do that for them (enter S3 key and ID). They aren't going to be part of your market if they don't.

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!

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.

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?

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

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.

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 :)

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

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

It is good to be the middleman!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com