Yes, but if it's your third location of 3-2-1 then it can also make sense to weigh it against data recovery costs on damaged hardware.

I backup to Glacier as well. For me to need to pull from it (and pay that $90/TB or so) means I've lost more than two drives in a historically very reliable RAIDZ2 pool, or lost my NAS entirely.

I'll pay $90/TB over unknown $$$$ for a data recovery from burned/flooded/fried/failed disks.

Retrieval? For an external backup? If I need to restore and my local backup is completely down, it either means I lost two drives (very unlikely) or the house is a calcinated husk and at this point I'm insured.

And let's be honest. If the house burns down, the computers are the third thing I get out of there after the wife and the dog. My external backup is peace of mind, nothing more. I don't ever expect to need it in my lifetime.

High 3 and 4 figures wouldn't occur for personal backups though. I've done a big retrieval once and the cost was literally just single digits dollars for me. So the total lifetime cost (including retrievals) is cheaper on S3 than R2 for my personal backup use case. This is why I struggle to take seriously any analysis that says S3 is expensive -- it is only expensive if you use the most expensive (default) S3 product. S3 has more options to offer than than R2 or other competitors which is why I stay with S3 and pay <$1.00 a month for my entire backup. Most competitors (including R2) would have me pay significantly more than I spend on the appropriate S3 product.