What others are charging. Is Storj pricing too cheap?

I am always impressed when I surf on other object providers websites and see what they are able to charge to their customers compared to Storj.

Examples:

Object Storage 2.0 | Timme Hosting
Sorry in German:
7,50 € pro 30 Tage (= 720 Stunden) zzgl. MwSt.
250 GB Object Storage Traffic inklusive
EUR 0,0104 pro Stunde

Je weitere angefangene 250 GB: EUR 0,0104 pro Stunde
(= EUR 7,50 pro 30 Tage)

Traffic is included. Still this means 4* 7,50 Euro per TB storage + traffic = 30 Euros.

Cloudferro
Object storage pricing - WAW3-1 Cloud | CloudFerro
0,019 Euros per GB = ca. 20 Euros per TB per month

Serverspace
Plans and Pricing | Cloud service provider Serverspace
1 TB storage + 1 TB egress = 32 Euros per month

How do these companies can find a single customer when Storj with much lower prices cannot find enough customers? It is unbelievable.

And why is it that in a Reddit thread about Hetzner Object Storage pricing Storj does not even get mentioned as alternative at all after 10 years in service?

Why are you so sure that we cannot find customers?
Is it only based on your nodes usage?

1 Like

Did you read what other node operators are saying or publishing?

And this:

And additionally I am seeing 81.0 PB of free space. Grafana
So no, I am not just talking about my nodes.

2 Likes

Obviously storj is still too expensive. Cloud space is a commodity like gasoline, you must be the cheapest to gain market share as a newcomer.

I would recommend to cut customer rates to 3 USD. SNO payout could go down to 1 USD or less, running nodes is burning money anyway .

2 Likes

Yes, I have read.
Perhaps there are too many nodes? They all share the common traffic. So more nodes - less usage for each?

However, my nodes have an ingress of 1.2TB anyway.

By the way, I would like to suggest to wait until the database migration will be completed before speculating on that stat.

1 Like

Notice those providers you listed also sell other products like servers. If you were a customer of any of those providers you’re probably likely to stick with them to keep headaches low and perhaps to even negotiate a cheaper cost than what is listed on the website. Easier billing, you already know what kind of support you are going to get, etc.

In other respects Storj may not be cheap enough; some object storage providers advertise free egress, be it up to 3x of what you have stored or practically unmetered. For a pure store once read many use-case Storj is pretty uncompetitive with this regard.

Then again I have one node that’s averaging ~17Mbps egress for the past few months so what do I know.

Yes these are “solution” providers and my idea is, if Storj could be part of the solutions they offer to their customers.
I doubt that all of them really have created their own object storage solution. So chances are they are already reselling maybe AWS or Google or whatever. Maybe that is a reason for the high prices they need to ask for.
So maybe Storj could be an interesting alternative they could offer to their customers maybe for lower prices than they have to request today. If they knew about Storj…
So maybe Storj should not wait until somebody asks them for reselling their service but be more proactive in advertising it like competitors do.

Of course we have resellers and all other channels.
See

4 Likes

Of course.
But it is a difference if you openly resell the product or if you can brand it under your own name so that your customer does not even know he is using someone else infrastructure.
As I assume that smaller providers do not have the resources to create and maintain every product they offer on their own, I am convinced a lot of reselling is going on white label basis. So it could be a successful move for Storj if the give resellers the ability to completely white label the object storage solution so that the solution provider can offer them to their customer.
If it is not white labeled chances are high, solution providers will not offer it to their customer as the real fear is that their customer then will subscribe with the original provider directly.
So chances are if a solution provider without own object storage wants to offer it to his customer, they choose Wasabi, because the Wasabi name and brand remains completely hidden.

We only see around 10% more nodes compared to one year before:

Including many Select nodes, number unknown.
So not likely.

I believe that this information is not complete at the moment (at least for November-December) due to databases migrations, so something could be missing.
However, if the number of nodes is growing even on 10%, that’s mean that the data is more distributed among them, at least on the same 10%. In some regions it maybe even more - if your location has more competitors, then the speed of the node is starting to play a significant role.

For example - you may check out this thread:

The difference between nodes in the same country (but which have distance between two compared locations) 300GB vs 1.49TB.

Somone famously said: “its a biiiiiiiiiig club, and you ain’t in it”"
The market is saturated, and the variety is huge, and the marketing is monopolised by few bigest players.

At this point i would suggest to use trust language.

Because when handling the data, people want a trust, a reliability.
I would suggets to start exposing something like:

“Storj - continuously steadfast for 9 years”

or whatever years it is.

because when ppl sees Storj web site for the first time, automatically thinks it must be new, because they never saw it. And they are not interested off the bat.

Because they want stable established company that they can trust.
Not some 2-3 years newborn.

But if they also see, its on the market for e.g. 9 years, that hits some FOMO,
like “how come i didn’t know?”
“i better check what i’m missing and catch up”
especially if theres some epic statements for example like “no file ever lost”


Besides, i don’t know if its too cheap.
i know ppl can pay any price for what they really value, or need.
seems like they don’t want to pay for traffic, if they can go, where they don’t pay.

I think paying right away for traffic is bad offer.
Ppl want to be able to NOT pay for some minimum thresholds.
There should be some min. GB a month of free traffic, to give ppl a CHANCE to start using the service, BEFORE they nest for good.

Thats the main reason in my opinion:
PPL choose whats free in first place, so theres really no CHANCE to choose storj, because they are already bound to others and they don’t have reasons to change anything (right? moving out is additional problem, and we don’t want those!)

i personally as a SNO would opt in to offer even FREE traffic, if only ppl want to bring data to me. So as well i agree to offer SOME free traffic as well. Not all egress traffic need to be paid, imho.

Those 30 days free trials or so, are maybe nice, but don’t hit the point.
For an user i want a service i can actually have a fair chance to use, over lets say 4-12 months to get the feeling. Without stress or rush. 30 days its not enough if someone is busy developing a project. Its go by soo fast. Making an App and testing i’m busy by my work, and i want service i can sign up and ALWAYS have some free use under pay table radar, untill i know im serious and im ready to go over the surface, public. (to launch a product beta or smth, when im ready to pay for the traffic, because im starting to offer a product, so customers starts to pay me from this point, and not earlier, speaking of small dev teams, and not backed by some venture)
Like 100GB a month always for free, under the paying radar, to get the feeling.

This is implemented as a free trial. You have 30 days, 25GB storage and 25GB egress traffic. A plenty of time and resources to test and decide. If not enough time, they may upgrade and finish the test. If there is no usage - there is no charges.

For that we have projects like storj-sim (Test network · storj/storj Wiki · GitHub) and storj-up (GitHub - storj/up: Docker-compose files for running full Storj network locally). They may test locally for free any amount of time.
They may also contact Sales to discuss their idea and get help and negotiate all financial questions too.

1 Like

People that want a forever-free tier… don’t turn into paying customers in any meaningful way. Most leech forever. Storj tried that for years, and it wasn’t working, so they switched to a time-based free trial instead.

Luckily, since Storj offers object-storage: their primary market is companies, and not individuals. And companies don’t want to build on free services that can go away: they want the support and availability guarantees that come with a paid relationship.

In a few more years, I guess we’ll know if their change worked! :wink:

3 Likes

Oh just now:

see? its not about the storage, its about the traffic.

You sure You want to earn 5$ on every 1TB egress?
cashing 7$ per 1 TB on non certified service?

Disks are Big today, say i want do a backup of my home disks
Uploading images of even 2TB disk makes the cost ridicules for just 1 download.
Not to mention a 16TB one. (I’d rather buy another disk)
Totally unaffordable for private use.
And commercial video or streaming traffic is a different matter.
A home backup with some downloads by 1 person and a hosting to the internet shouldn’t be priced the same with one tariff.

i mean Home and business shouldn’t be treated the same in Storj Public network.
I even had idea when people argued about different price tariffs here, why not let them and check in real life what Storj’s price plan will enjoy more market recognition?
By letting SNOs to choose to how they want their nodes to be used and priced.

  • You have fast node? You might want it to be hot storage, fast egress, good I/O (but maybe not much TB’s storage) at 4$ egress* (lower price resulting more incentive to use egress) and like 6$ for storage.
  • You have slower node? You don’t want a lot egress? fine, let it be for backups at 7$ egress.* (higher price incentive to not download the files) and 4$ for storage

(*Prices to end customer, according to current pricing plan, which i thing is waaay too high for egress for private backups)

Here are the latest 2023 values of the graph from source:

1 Like

They always can contact Sales and discuss that. Operators are paid as usual, so nothing is needed to be changed to do not complicate things too much.

Altogether or each node? Per month?
How much do they grow?

Off-topic comment - If I look at something like a router graph for average ingress Mbps… then compare it to node used-space growth… it’s about half. Like if my router says a node received 1GB over a day… then the node says it grew around 500MB.

I don’t know why the difference: I just assume others see the same? Not important… just interesting.

About 300GB per month. Three nodes behind /24 subnet. Two nodes are docker (Docker Desktop for Windows), one is a Windows service (“Windows GUI”).