No. They use hedges to control their cost (this is the original point of hedging...). If a company is reliant on a constant supply of hard-drives and doesn't want to be exposed to the risk of extreme price jumps it should probably do the same.
e.g. http://www.delta.com/business_programs_services/delta_cargo/... the first column is the fuel surcharge that floats with fuel prices.
The Backblaze article clearly said that paying more for drives and passing it on the customers was an option. They just found a better one. They didn't mention it, but just losing money for a while is also a reasonable option if you don't want to antagonize your customers.
Given that hard drive prices almost always drop constantly, is that tactic really a good idea? Is it possible to reasonably hedge against price spikes in a commodity whose price you expect to consistently and rapidly drop? (Serious questions, really.)
Typically if you're hedging a commodity for actual use, what you're trying to do is to lock in your cost and not to make money out of it. Let's look at an airline for example. The price of oil currently is $90/barrel and I think it might go up even more to $120/barrel. I buy a contract for 100 barrels of oil at $100/barrel deliverable in 3 months. Say I use 100 barrels of oil every 3 months. I now know that my fuel cost is now $10,000 for those 3 months. This then allows me to price my product based on that $10,000 assumption.
In the case of hard drives, I have no idea if it would be a good idea to hedge since the prices keep on dropping and the Thailand flood is not an everyday occurance and in general prices of hard drives are pretty stable and don't fluctuate like oil prices. But fundamentally, you're not trying to avoid losing money; you're trying to lock in your cost so you can price your service accordingly and not be in a bind if the price of your commodity fluctuates.