I personally don’t see the value of $2.50 (S3) versus $12 (you) (for 100 GB). Especially for file storage, who knows when you’re going to close up shop and take my data with it?
I should be able to store my data where I want to. If you wanted to wrap a service around S3, Backblaze, or whatever, maybe sell the convenience instead of selling storage?
Note that unlike FILE0, S3 not only charges for storage, but for write requests, read requests, network bandwidth, and some less obvious niche things.
So it's not a 1-1 comparison.
If you don't see the value in this extra convinience you should stay with your current service! The goal of FILE0 is not to replace these big players, but to provide an option to folks who just want to get things up and running quickly and don't want to think about infrastructure.
Lets say you become a huge hit and megaupload or vimeo or someone else with massive traffic (but not on the "we built our own datacenters and ISP CDN" level) start using your service. What then? Cloudflare will call you and demand you step up to an enterprise plan or pay for premium traffic.
Your pricing model assumes the pricing model of another pricing model that assumes pricing negotiation when usage increases. You will be the middle party in a discussion where you really don't control either party.
This is why I actually like AWS:es nickle-and-dime for every compute second and megabyte.
I should be able to store my data where I want to. If you wanted to wrap a service around S3, Backblaze, or whatever, maybe sell the convenience instead of selling storage?