Dropbox Owns Cloud Storage on Mobile(cloudrail.com)
cloudrail.com
Dropbox Owns Cloud Storage on Mobile
https://cloudrail.com/cloud-storage-report-dropbox-owns-cloud-storage-mobile/
9 comments
From among CloudRail powered mobile apps. Meaning iCloud isn't considered at all. Interesting finding, but needs an asterisk.
Yea, but lets say we just pick iOS users, how do you tell they use iCloud over Dropbox when some things do not give a choice? This is probably as good as we're gonna get from a third-party.
I guess every iOS user uses iCloud somehow. But for me it's just backup because it is so limited to the Apple world. Do they even have a public API?
Oh wow, I never knew about that.
iCloud is purely optional. You just need any email address for an AppleID for a functional phone with AppStore, notifications, etc.
[deleted]
Does iCloud even allow storing arbitrary files? I can't even figure out how to drag and drop a file from my mac to the icloud drive, let alone retrieve it from the iOS side.
I don't think you can compare iCloud with general purpose storage; it seems angled towards iOS app integrations instead.
I don't think you can compare iCloud with general purpose storage; it seems angled towards iOS app integrations instead.
macOS Sierra syncs the desktop and documents folders across all your Macs and makes the files available in the iOS iCloud Drive app as well.
It's really handy - I've pretty much stopped using Dropbox, except to share files with people on other platforms.
With a few (and lessening) limitations, iCloud is becoming the general user-accessible filesystem that iOS has lacked since the beginning.
All that's needed now is a download manager in safari.
It's really handy - I've pretty much stopped using Dropbox, except to share files with people on other platforms.
With a few (and lessening) limitations, iCloud is becoming the general user-accessible filesystem that iOS has lacked since the beginning.
All that's needed now is a download manager in safari.
And a family plan, so I can pay for higher tiers and share them between my wife and I.
Um, it's trivial to drag any file on a Mac into iCloud. Look in the sidebar in the Finder, between Favorites and Devices is iCloud. Click there to see the contents of your iCloud storage.
On iOS, the iCloud Drive app lets you see everything in iCloud storage as well.
Certainly iOS app integration is important in iCloud, but it functions perfectly well for any other use too.
On iOS, the iCloud Drive app lets you see everything in iCloud storage as well.
Certainly iOS app integration is important in iCloud, but it functions perfectly well for any other use too.
In the Finder, iCloud Drive is also available in the Go menu, or with the keyboard shortcut ⌘⇧I
True! It is just among Dropbox GoogleDrive Box OneDrive. Also Egnyte is not considered (or just too small?) even it is supported by cloudrail.
I don't claim to represent the average app developer but I've never so much as heard of CloudRail, them claiming to be a "Unified API integration leader" and all. I can't find them being written about by someone like Gartner; some other sources claim that they're a European startup in the IoT integration space.
I guess I'm not sure what to make of some unknown-to-me company's study on usage of its own SDK for cloud storage; and this study being posted in 'news release'-style on their blog. To me, these are huge grains of salt.
I guess I'm not sure what to make of some unknown-to-me company's study on usage of its own SDK for cloud storage; and this study being posted in 'news release'-style on their blog. To me, these are huge grains of salt.
I looked at CloudRail, but the Dropbox and Google Drive API's are pretty easy to use.
Adding this layer of middleware is just another layer of complexity for us.
Adding this layer of middleware is just another layer of complexity for us.
I've heard of them before a couple times but frankly, I don't know how good the source is. Just considered it interesting and I'm a Dropbox only user as well.
I'm a "use all the free space I can get from whichever provider" user. Across the providers I use I have 207.25 GB of storage.Dropbox, Drive, Box, and OneDrive all integrate with Astro file manager on my phone. Media Fire and AT&T Locker thru only their own apps. Astro may or may not use cloud rail internally to abstract away the apis for each different server. Although Astro does not offer egnyte so probably not.
That doesn't include Amazon's unlimited free storage for photos with our family prime account.
Oh, and a 1 TB Western Digital personal cloud drive...
That doesn't include Amazon's unlimited free storage for photos with our family prime account.
Oh, and a 1 TB Western Digital personal cloud drive...
I decided that it's not worth the hassle to keep track of so many accounts, so I fork over $2/month to get 100 GB on Google Drive. I was going to get OneDrive, but I have no need for the whole Office 365 shenanigans.
I do understand that point of view. And did consider it, but the way I use the different services is segmented by what I use them for which works for me. box is the backup of just my Calibre library, amazon photos, google drive is just documents, spreadsheets, etc.
I really don't understand Dropbox. For the average user that wants to store, say, a few tens of GBs Dropbox costs $9.99 a month. Nevermind it gives 1TB total, most people don't need that much. iCloud, for example, costs $0.99/month. That's an _order of magnitude_ more expensive.
Whichever way you slice it, it seems like Dropbox's core user base, that pays but doesn't take full advantage of the 1TB is bank-rolling the free accounts and the accounts that max out their paid storage.
I don't know why people put up with it?
Whichever way you slice it, it seems like Dropbox's core user base, that pays but doesn't take full advantage of the 1TB is bank-rolling the free accounts and the accounts that max out their paid storage.
I don't know why people put up with it?
Dropbox works.
Put aside all the concerns over War Crimes or Spying, or Security, Dropbox simply works. Every mobile platform is supported. Every desktop platform is supported. Sharing, Teams, direct links, all the core features are there. Anyone can safely recommend and share Dropbox files with their Grandma (with a PC still running XP), or their Mac loving parents, or their weird hipster friend running Gentoo GNU/Linux, and Dropbox will still work.
A lot of HN prioritizes things like data security or political signaling over frictionless implementations. Sure you can get secure file synchronization with rsync and ssh keys, but the average consumer has never even seen a terminal. I'm sure security and politics are important when selling to other tech users, but Dropbox is general consumer facing, and they have succeeded at their task, making flash drives obsolete.
Put aside all the concerns over War Crimes or Spying, or Security, Dropbox simply works. Every mobile platform is supported. Every desktop platform is supported. Sharing, Teams, direct links, all the core features are there. Anyone can safely recommend and share Dropbox files with their Grandma (with a PC still running XP), or their Mac loving parents, or their weird hipster friend running Gentoo GNU/Linux, and Dropbox will still work.
A lot of HN prioritizes things like data security or political signaling over frictionless implementations. Sure you can get secure file synchronization with rsync and ssh keys, but the average consumer has never even seen a terminal. I'm sure security and politics are important when selling to other tech users, but Dropbox is general consumer facing, and they have succeeded at their task, making flash drives obsolete.
> Every desktop platform is supported.
Not every. Dropbox doesn't work on FreeBSD. But mobile client probably the best.
Not every. Dropbox doesn't work on FreeBSD. But mobile client probably the best.
On occasion I am forced to use toPDF on my ios devices, plus some gymnastics to save documents to Dropbox.
This might have been obviated by some share nonsense I did with iPhotos. Dropbox seems to be working better and better.
Available offline is the killer feature of both Dropbox and Drive. You still cannot depend on connectivity, and have to plan ahead with critical documents. It becomes part of your travel routine.
This might have been obviated by some share nonsense I did with iPhotos. Dropbox seems to be working better and better.
Available offline is the killer feature of both Dropbox and Drive. You still cannot depend on connectivity, and have to plan ahead with critical documents. It becomes part of your travel routine.
The key issue for me is that I don't currently need 1 TB, which is why I use Google Drive's 100 GB option. If Dropbox added a 250 GB option or something, I'd switch immediately.
rsync isn't enough. Bidirectional sync with nodes that can drop offline is a pain to handle.
Yea, I agree. We were just saved by their unlimited versioning and now I only recommend Dropbox. If your business account files ever become encrypted make sure you call support immediately.
You're right. It's been years since I carried around a flash drive, only to lose it, or not know which flash drive has...
Agreed, it's just got to work.
We're working on an alternative: https://www.sync.com/your-privacy/
We're working on an alternative: https://www.sync.com/your-privacy/
I understand what you mean by "zero knowledge", but it bothers me when companies say things like "we can't access your data because it's encrypted client-side".
If the service provider controls the code in the client (as you do), the fact is the service provider definitely can access the data, you're just choosing not to.
I don't think there is much difference between encrypting client-side when you control the client, and encrypting server-side before storage. Either way you have encryption-at-rest.
If the service provider controls the code in the client (as you do), the fact is the service provider definitely can access the data, you're just choosing not to.
I don't think there is much difference between encrypting client-side when you control the client, and encrypting server-side before storage. Either way you have encryption-at-rest.
There is a difference, and its about how the data is going to leak out. If the access can only happen via a key stored on the client, the client somehow has to supply that to the attacker (whether an official attacker or not). If every user's key and data are stored on the server then a compromise of every (or any) user becomes much more feasible. There isn't really a problem of data at rest being stolen (except for laptops/cell phones/usb sticks), it is stolen while live.
Overall though I would agree that you can't trust it much, because some code is downloaded from the server and then you trust that code (which can communicate with the server) with the key... Perhaps if it was in a local sandbox whose policies were enforced in a browser pref, or there was taint analysis applied to sensitive local data.
In years to come people will snicker at how wide open and insecure things were back in 201x.
Overall though I would agree that you can't trust it much, because some code is downloaded from the server and then you trust that code (which can communicate with the server) with the key... Perhaps if it was in a local sandbox whose policies were enforced in a browser pref, or there was taint analysis applied to sensitive local data.
In years to come people will snicker at how wide open and insecure things were back in 201x.
If you store the keys, sure, that's less secure for sure.
But just because you encrypt server side doesn't mean you store keys.
What's the difference between:
Big picture: either way the developer sees the key and the unencrypted data. Either way, you are completely trusting the competence of the developer at implementing this scheme, and their trustworthiness with the key and unencrypted data.
There is no such thing as "host-proof" encryption as long as the client is provided by the host.
But just because you encrypt server side doesn't mean you store keys.
What's the difference between:
1. Get key from user on client
2. Encrypt on client
3. Discard key
4. Discard unencrypted data
5. Send encrypted data to server
6. Store encrypted data
1. Get key from user on client
2. Send key and data to server over SSL
3. Encrypt on server in response handler
4. Discard key
5. Discard unencrypted data
6. Store encrypted data
Big picture: either way the developer sees the key and the unencrypted data. Either way, you are completely trusting the competence of the developer at implementing this scheme, and their trustworthiness with the key and unencrypted data.
There is no such thing as "host-proof" encryption as long as the client is provided by the host.
Dunno why you're getting down voted. Sounds like great news to me!
Will you have a Linux client? (I'm sure that's the least favorite question new services like this get.)
I ripped Dropbox out by the roots on all of my systems some time back because of the contempt they display for their users. New, more privacy- and security-conscious services are nice (as are ones that don't break their users' machines and then go weaselly when caught). But I really want the option to use my own infrastructure for apps that want to store data somewhere remote.
Especially for file-based services, the only argument for Dropbox is "because they're big and probably already installed"[2]. I'd deeply appreciate it if these sorts of apps would add a preference-pane for scp, at least. I have no idea if the crusty-folks-like-me market is big enough to constitute a noticeable bump in app store sales or not, but I promise, given two competing apps, I'll forgive a lot of other warts in and pay more for the one that lets me own my own data.
[1] I know cloud is king, but there are a lot of us out here that want to own our own data, rather than having the cloud-overlords rent it back to us. The Omnigroup's apps are great examples of this - you can use their sync servers, but you can also (and I do) run your own WebDAV server for it. Works great, and I have paid the Omnigroup substantially more than any other single mobile app vendor for their apps.
[2] Synchronization is difficult enough in some contexts that I completely get writing something more complicated there, but then we're not talking about Dropbox or their competitors anymore.
Will you have a Linux client? (I'm sure that's the least favorite question new services like this get.)
I ripped Dropbox out by the roots on all of my systems some time back because of the contempt they display for their users. New, more privacy- and security-conscious services are nice (as are ones that don't break their users' machines and then go weaselly when caught). But I really want the option to use my own infrastructure for apps that want to store data somewhere remote.
Especially for file-based services, the only argument for Dropbox is "because they're big and probably already installed"[2]. I'd deeply appreciate it if these sorts of apps would add a preference-pane for scp, at least. I have no idea if the crusty-folks-like-me market is big enough to constitute a noticeable bump in app store sales or not, but I promise, given two competing apps, I'll forgive a lot of other warts in and pay more for the one that lets me own my own data.
[1] I know cloud is king, but there are a lot of us out here that want to own our own data, rather than having the cloud-overlords rent it back to us. The Omnigroup's apps are great examples of this - you can use their sync servers, but you can also (and I do) run your own WebDAV server for it. Works great, and I have paid the Omnigroup substantially more than any other single mobile app vendor for their apps.
[2] Synchronization is difficult enough in some contexts that I completely get writing something more complicated there, but then we're not talking about Dropbox or their competitors anymore.
We hope to get to a Linux client at some point, however, the demand for our Windows, Mac and mobile apps has been keeping us really busy. Our primary focus right now is on the platform, as the cloud is only king when it's stable, reliable and fast.
No Linux unfortunately.
Do you find Dropbox to work any better than Google drive? If so how/when/where?
I'm pretty firmly in the if-can't-self-host-i-don't-care camp (which rules out Dropbox and drive alike) - but I've recently had reason to share documents at work, without any in-house infrastructure. And the combination of "good enough" Google docs and sheets along with easy to use drive on laptop/desktop/mobile is hard to beat - especially with a pretty easy learning curve.
I only whish drive had the ability to mark a "folder" as available offline, as the fiction of 4g everywhere gets a bit tiresome when you find yourself on a mountain and need to pull up your list of students to make sure you haven't left someone to bleed out on the way up (ok, for that you practice the buddy system and have a paper backup. But it's still nice to work on notes offline wherever you are and have them sync, without offline-first being something special).
I'm pretty firmly in the if-can't-self-host-i-don't-care camp (which rules out Dropbox and drive alike) - but I've recently had reason to share documents at work, without any in-house infrastructure. And the combination of "good enough" Google docs and sheets along with easy to use drive on laptop/desktop/mobile is hard to beat - especially with a pretty easy learning curve.
I only whish drive had the ability to mark a "folder" as available offline, as the fiction of 4g everywhere gets a bit tiresome when you find yourself on a mountain and need to pull up your list of students to make sure you haven't left someone to bleed out on the way up (ok, for that you practice the buddy system and have a paper backup. But it's still nice to work on notes offline wherever you are and have them sync, without offline-first being something special).
> If so how/when/where?
Linux. I'd love to use Google Drive since I have more space available there, but all the Linux clients for Drive suck since none of them is official and don't have as much features as the Dropbox client.
Linux. I'd love to use Google Drive since I have more space available there, but all the Linux clients for Drive suck since none of them is official and don't have as much features as the Dropbox client.
Even though I have 3 Apple devices, I cannot use iCloud because I also use non-Apple devices, like Linux, Windows and Android. Yes, all of them. Dropbox has support for all, including Linux, which is a big deal.
Dropbox also does file versioning. You get an addon and it does versioning for a year. You cannot speak of having backups without this feature and iCloud doesn't. Get a ransomeware on your computer and you'll see what I'm talking about ;-)
And also, once you get in the habit of saving stuff, 1 TB is really not that much. My personal photo/video archive is 90 GB. I have another 20 GB of online presentations I gave to colleagues, archived just in case, about 10 GB of music, 30 GB of movies (mostly for my son, as he'd be really upset without his favorites), recovery stuff, project backups, all in all I exceed 200 GB. Actually at the rate I'm growing, 1 TB might soon be insufficient.
I also understand the reluctance to pay for stuff, but personally I think my data deserves the price of 2-3 coffees per month. My personal email deserves another coffee or two.
Dropbox also does file versioning. You get an addon and it does versioning for a year. You cannot speak of having backups without this feature and iCloud doesn't. Get a ransomeware on your computer and you'll see what I'm talking about ;-)
And also, once you get in the habit of saving stuff, 1 TB is really not that much. My personal photo/video archive is 90 GB. I have another 20 GB of online presentations I gave to colleagues, archived just in case, about 10 GB of music, 30 GB of movies (mostly for my son, as he'd be really upset without his favorites), recovery stuff, project backups, all in all I exceed 200 GB. Actually at the rate I'm growing, 1 TB might soon be insufficient.
I also understand the reluctance to pay for stuff, but personally I think my data deserves the price of 2-3 coffees per month. My personal email deserves another coffee or two.
iCloud is close to useless if you need platform-agnostic storage. I only use it for iOS backups and of course the apps that sync their data via iCloud. Does the service even offer a file browser?
Whenever I deal with data I want to access on a file level and not through apps, like documents, photos, etc. I use Dropbox. And since I have to backup my music library (500 GB) somewhere anyway, I'll gladly use Dropbox Pro tier. Yes, I could save 3 bucks by using Amazon Cloud Drive or other services, but Dropbox' user experience and thoughtful design is second to none.
Whenever I deal with data I want to access on a file level and not through apps, like documents, photos, etc. I use Dropbox. And since I have to backup my music library (500 GB) somewhere anyway, I'll gladly use Dropbox Pro tier. Yes, I could save 3 bucks by using Amazon Cloud Drive or other services, but Dropbox' user experience and thoughtful design is second to none.
Will echo what others said. Dropbox works - and it works cross-platform. I have linux, mac & windows desktops/laptops and iphones/ipads... dropbox has a complete cross-platform solution which integrates well with the native file browsing mechanism. I won't even consider icloud.
My use of dropbox has grown - but I primarily used it to store and retrieve a lot of data that I was analyzing when did my PhD. The data were several 100 GB in size. The 1 TB solution came quite handy. I also moved between my mac & linux during that time. I just had my files when I needed them.
My use of dropbox has grown - but I primarily used it to store and retrieve a lot of data that I was analyzing when did my PhD. The data were several 100 GB in size. The 1 TB solution came quite handy. I also moved between my mac & linux during that time. I just had my files when I needed them.
It depends on what you're doing. If you're in the Apple ecosystem with a Mac and iPhone/iPad, the iCloud photo storage is really awesome. For us, it took away the hassle of managing iOS storage.
But... the iCloud Drive function is immature and unreliable.
Right now, I subscribe to Dropbox Pro and iCloud. I'll probably drop Dropbox as their photo story sucks, and they don't make key features available to "Pro" users like full text search.
But... the iCloud Drive function is immature and unreliable.
Right now, I subscribe to Dropbox Pro and iCloud. I'll probably drop Dropbox as their photo story sucks, and they don't make key features available to "Pro" users like full text search.
Dropbox just works.
Go on vacation, my itinerary, all my travel docs, critical material, it's in Dropbox, and often available offline, since wifi can be spotty. Now its in my phone and my Ipad as well. It just works. And if you're cheap like me, you manage Dropbox, not waste it.
But iCloud is the sleeper. In particular, Notes seems to be open on my desktop and all my devices. A terrific application.
But iCloud is the sleeper. In particular, Notes seems to be open on my desktop and all my devices. A terrific application.
I've lost files on iCloud. It's also harder to use.
Because it's the only cloud provider that has reliable cross-platform syncing solution and works extremely well?
As soon as you try their competitors (Drive, Box, iCloud) you find out just how utterly crappy they are as soon as you need to share files with other people. Dropbox does it seamlessly. Bankrolling free accounts so students can have their thesis backed up is a small price to pay for that.
As soon as you try their competitors (Drive, Box, iCloud) you find out just how utterly crappy they are as soon as you need to share files with other people. Dropbox does it seamlessly. Bankrolling free accounts so students can have their thesis backed up is a small price to pay for that.
Dropbox's pricing is indeed frustrating, on both ends of the spectrum. Small time users pay a lot more than competitors so they can store a reasonable amount, and if you want to store a lot of stuff you're shit out of luck as the only option is to get their "team" storage which has more stuff than a single user needs. I don't even really need sharing, I can send stuff via email or other methods for that - I want personal file syncing.
I've been using iCloud Drive recently, and it works pretty well. Maybe if Apple ever gets around to releasing new Macs they'll bump the default storage level and cover more people because as it stands it's at 5GB which isn't competitive anymore.
I've been using iCloud Drive recently, and it works pretty well. Maybe if Apple ever gets around to releasing new Macs they'll bump the default storage level and cover more people because as it stands it's at 5GB which isn't competitive anymore.
> I don't know why people put up with it?
Lock-in? Once you have a few gigs up on Dropbox, it's a bit of a challenge transferring it elsewhere.
Lock-in? Once you have a few gigs up on Dropbox, it's a bit of a challenge transferring it elsewhere.
Not really. I stay with Dropbox because, as others have said, it just works, and it does so across pretty much every major platform, both desktop and mobile. Cloud storage is their core product, and it shows. And the pricing really isn't that different from other similar solutions from what I've seen.
The few times I tried to use Drive, it was considerably more hassle to work with (and slow), iCloud was right out because it's Apple-platforms only, and my experiences with OneNote's sync issues makes me wary of trying OneDrive. Haven't looked at Box since I was under the impression it was aimed at businesses/enterprise more than individuals.
The few times I tried to use Drive, it was considerably more hassle to work with (and slow), iCloud was right out because it's Apple-platforms only, and my experiences with OneNote's sync issues makes me wary of trying OneDrive. Haven't looked at Box since I was under the impression it was aimed at businesses/enterprise more than individuals.
I disagree. As a long time paying Dropbox customer, I reevaluate each year, including copying all my data over to a competing provider to see how it shakes out. For all the big providers it's drag and drop. So far what keeps me coming back to Dropbox is that the other solutions have sync reliability issues on one or more of the platforms I use (we're a diverse family, with everything from a Linux server to OSX to Windows 10 to Android and iOS mobile devices sharing the same Dropbox account).
Have you tried Seafile? (https://seafile.de/)
That has been the only cloud storage provider good enough (but not as good as) Dropbox to wean me away from DB. I've been using it for a couple of months now.
That has been the only cloud storage provider good enough (but not as good as) Dropbox to wean me away from DB. I've been using it for a couple of months now.
A combination of name recognition, customer satisfaction or customer inertia, a decent product, and data compartmentalization.
For example, it irks me that Google Drive is a catch-all storage space for Google products; sometimes all you want is a dumb folder that just syncs up and down whatever you put into it and Dropbox (and Box) give that to you without any mandatory integrations that benefit the companies that bankroll the storage (Google Drive, OneDrive), but not necessarily you.
It's also nice that Dropbox treats every platform as a first-class citizen. It's pretty obvious that some storage products are a just pieces of a larger puzzle that you happen to be able to use as a cloud drive, while some other companies make it clear that offering a cloud drive is their primary business.
For example, it irks me that Google Drive is a catch-all storage space for Google products; sometimes all you want is a dumb folder that just syncs up and down whatever you put into it and Dropbox (and Box) give that to you without any mandatory integrations that benefit the companies that bankroll the storage (Google Drive, OneDrive), but not necessarily you.
It's also nice that Dropbox treats every platform as a first-class citizen. It's pretty obvious that some storage products are a just pieces of a larger puzzle that you happen to be able to use as a cloud drive, while some other companies make it clear that offering a cloud drive is their primary business.
I don't understand your comparison. iCloud is only $0.99 for the 50GB option. I have over 300GB (and growing) worth of pictures and videos that I've been collecting since my first kid was born 6 years ago. It would be $9.99 on iCloud just as it is on Dropbox. Even cheaper on Dropbox, actually, because I buy by the year (and full disclosure, I get 2TB for the price of 1TB because I'm a long term customer, but I only use about half a TB overall so it's no difference to me).
Aside from the price, Dropbox just works. Android, iPhone, my Macbook Pros, my wife's Windows 10 laptop -- no problems, it just does what we expect it to.
I've looked at other solutions, even signed up for the trial of OneDrive (got burned on their filename length limit, oddly enough), and decided Dropbox works well enough to keep. I reevaluate every year and I'm perfectly willing to move when someone comes along that is conclusively better. They all match each other pretty quickly on pricing, so it's reliability (first) and features (second) that get my wallet to open.
Aside from the price, Dropbox just works. Android, iPhone, my Macbook Pros, my wife's Windows 10 laptop -- no problems, it just does what we expect it to.
I've looked at other solutions, even signed up for the trial of OneDrive (got burned on their filename length limit, oddly enough), and decided Dropbox works well enough to keep. I reevaluate every year and I'm perfectly willing to move when someone comes along that is conclusively better. They all match each other pretty quickly on pricing, so it's reliability (first) and features (second) that get my wallet to open.
if you dont care about the best usability, and you dont collaborate, Amazon Cloud Drive is 60/year for unlimited storage. not that youll hit 2tb soon, but for someone looking for cheap and easy cloud storage, dropbox is kind of expensive. you pay for the featureset not the storage size.
And if you're only storing still images, Amazon Cloud Drive has a $12/year plan (or, an exact clone of the same tier included with Prime right now) for unlimited photo storage, which is practically a steal if you take a lot of pictures and not a lot of video.
It's cheap enough that I can use it as a cloud copy or a second cloud copy, and I never have to worry about losing photos again.
It's cheap enough that I can use it as a cloud copy or a second cloud copy, and I never have to worry about losing photos again.
I store my photos on Amazon cloud drive as a 2nd backup, already using OneDrive for the same purpose that came with office 365. The benefit of ACD is that it doesn't automatically sync, which is a plus in the age of ransomware (there's unofficial tools for automatic sync)
Amazon Cloud drive is great for the price (I use it) but they also have filesize limits (anything over 5GB seems to simply error out without warning), so I end up RARing my larger drive backups. Also the software backing it is severely lacking, besides the auto-upload of photos from my iPhone.
They probably changed the limit cause I do have 20gb files on it. It did fail on a 60gb .tar.gz site backup file though.
Storing those photos and videos on Google Photos [0] would be free though. Just last week I migrated my photos away from iCloud and to Google Photos, since I don't really want to spend money for storage. And I got sick of the notification in Mac OS X to upgrade my iCloud storage.
For people who value privacy a lot, maybe Google Photos might not be a nice option. I should note that one can choose whether to share photos with other people or not on Google Photos.
---
[0]: https://photos.google.com
For people who value privacy a lot, maybe Google Photos might not be a nice option. I should note that one can choose whether to share photos with other people or not on Google Photos.
---
[0]: https://photos.google.com
Google Photos storage is unlimited at a reduced/optimized resolution. If you want to maintain the original raw resolution, it uses your Google Drive Storage for that. If you decide to get a Google Pixel phone, they give you the unlimited raw format storage.
Nothing can be concluded from this data as is. It's by usage on their platform.
A totally different way to read this would be Dropbox needs the most help from 3rd parties. Another would be that Dropbox is the platform that people build for the most.
A totally different way to read this would be Dropbox needs the most help from 3rd parties. Another would be that Dropbox is the platform that people build for the most.
I'm struggling to understand why. It has a very poor business model, security issues and the storage for the price just doesn't add up. Google Drive or iCloud are far easier to set up, cheaper, and has oodles more space.
Dropbox is currently indispensable for iOS users. Most iOS people I know use Dropbox as the clunky-but-works app-to-app sharing mechanism. Dropbox is not as popular on Android because apps can integrate more naturally.
iCloud may be easier and is the probable successor, but Apple has only recently gotten its cloud game together and its free option is only 5GB.
Eventually the platforms are going to make using a third party obsolete (arguably already so on Android) so I predict we're at peak Dropbox usage. Especially considering Google's new Pixel phones will store all photos at full resolution for free, I'm sure Apple will at least have to increase their free storage tier.
iCloud may be easier and is the probable successor, but Apple has only recently gotten its cloud game together and its free option is only 5GB.
Eventually the platforms are going to make using a third party obsolete (arguably already so on Android) so I predict we're at peak Dropbox usage. Especially considering Google's new Pixel phones will store all photos at full resolution for free, I'm sure Apple will at least have to increase their free storage tier.
I'm confused by your comment... I'm a recent convert to iOS from Windows Phone, and I've just kept on using OneDrive for my documents. I'm not even sure what "app-to-app sharing" means. Dropbox definitely isn't indispensable to me.
For example, creating a file in one app, editing it in another app, sending it to a third app to upload somewhere else.
That's hard to do without a filesystem or proper Intents.
iOS has neither, so people use Dropbox as filesystem.
That's hard to do without a filesystem or proper Intents.
iOS has neither, so people use Dropbox as filesystem.
Dropbox tends to sync more reliably than other services. This isn't something that affects every user. But a sync solution that doesn't work well enough for you despite being cheaper, easier to setup, space etc, isn't that useful.
Dropbox is the only service (I know of) that supports Linux. While it may not affect you directly, it does affect who you can interoperate with. For example in a startup with developers using Linux, you'll need something that works for them too.
Dropbox is the only service (I know of) that supports Linux. While it may not affect you directly, it does affect who you can interoperate with. For example in a startup with developers using Linux, you'll need something that works for them too.
> It has a very poor business model, security issues and the storage for the price just doesn't add up. Google Drive or iCloud are far easier to set up, cheaper, and has oodles more space.
That's three major questions begged in a single sentence, followed by 3 more in the next. Perhaps if you tried to back up each of those claims, you'd have an easier time understanding.
“Poor business model” would be the first place to start since Dropbox has ton of users and they tend to be loyal: learning why would tell you whether you're making the right comparisons.
“Security” is a judgement call but it's certainly not true that this is accepted conventional wisdom. Sure, there's the occasional hyperbolic blog post which makes the rounds before someone looks into the details and debunks the conspiracy theories but Apple and Google certainly get those, too.
Continuing the trend, the pricing also does not support your claims:
Google:
1TB = $9.99/mo (https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en)
Dropbox:
1TB = $9.99/mo (https://www.dropbox.com/plans)
Apple:
1TB = $9.99/mo (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201238)
Even if the pricing wasn't the same for all three services, that's a relatively small amount of money to pay for a service which many people rely on heavily and you couldn't say anything meaningful about pricing without talking about the different features. If you valued a particular feature or related service (e.g. Google Photos, Dropbox's cross-platform support & integration with a wide range of mobile apps, etc.) many people will consider it worth paying a small amount more per month to get their favorite choice – we're talking numbers well under what many people spend at Starbucks in the same time-period, after all.
One point in particular you should think about is the reason why I've heard so many non-IT people favor Dropbox: it's easy to setup, syncs reliably (as opposed to iCloud's same-week synchronization), and they always have a full copy of their data on every computer. It's really easy to forget how much people value the idea that they will never be in the case where a network error or billing screwup prevents them from accessing their files. That doesn't have to be a common event for people to want to avoid it.
That's three major questions begged in a single sentence, followed by 3 more in the next. Perhaps if you tried to back up each of those claims, you'd have an easier time understanding.
“Poor business model” would be the first place to start since Dropbox has ton of users and they tend to be loyal: learning why would tell you whether you're making the right comparisons.
“Security” is a judgement call but it's certainly not true that this is accepted conventional wisdom. Sure, there's the occasional hyperbolic blog post which makes the rounds before someone looks into the details and debunks the conspiracy theories but Apple and Google certainly get those, too.
Continuing the trend, the pricing also does not support your claims:
Google:
1TB = $9.99/mo (https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en)
Dropbox:
1TB = $9.99/mo (https://www.dropbox.com/plans)
Apple:
1TB = $9.99/mo (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201238)
Even if the pricing wasn't the same for all three services, that's a relatively small amount of money to pay for a service which many people rely on heavily and you couldn't say anything meaningful about pricing without talking about the different features. If you valued a particular feature or related service (e.g. Google Photos, Dropbox's cross-platform support & integration with a wide range of mobile apps, etc.) many people will consider it worth paying a small amount more per month to get their favorite choice – we're talking numbers well under what many people spend at Starbucks in the same time-period, after all.
One point in particular you should think about is the reason why I've heard so many non-IT people favor Dropbox: it's easy to setup, syncs reliably (as opposed to iCloud's same-week synchronization), and they always have a full copy of their data on every computer. It's really easy to forget how much people value the idea that they will never be in the case where a network error or billing screwup prevents them from accessing their files. That doesn't have to be a common event for people to want to avoid it.
Poor business model: I refer to their freemium offering which is poor compared to competitors.
Security: If you think that's a judgement call, fine, if you think that the dropbox hack is a judgment issue.
Pricing: For Joe Bloggs, 100GB is generally enough. Google handily offers that for $2. With Dropbox, there's a cliff - a few gig for free or a terabyte for $10/m. Why no middle ground? Both Apple and Google offer scaled plans, why doesn't Dropbox?
Security: If you think that's a judgement call, fine, if you think that the dropbox hack is a judgment issue.
Pricing: For Joe Bloggs, 100GB is generally enough. Google handily offers that for $2. With Dropbox, there's a cliff - a few gig for free or a terabyte for $10/m. Why no middle ground? Both Apple and Google offer scaled plans, why doesn't Dropbox?
> Poor business model: I refer to their freemium offering which is poor compared to competitors.
Okay, that's a start, do you think you can explain some of the analysis backing the opinion which you assumed everyone else shared?
> Security: If you think that's a judgement call, fine, if you think that the dropbox hack is a judgment issue.
If we stopped using any company which has had a security problem, we wouldn't be using computers. That's why I said it was a judgement call: one incident years ago is not much of a trend line so different people might reasonably have different comfort levels.
> Pricing: For Joe Bloggs, 100GB is generally enough. Google handily offers that for $2. With Dropbox, there's a cliff - a few gig for free or a terabyte for $10/m. Why no middle ground? Both Apple and Google offer scaled plans, why doesn't Dropbox?
Oh, now there's a valid question about the business model: perhaps they should have a middle tier. That's what you should have said instead of claiming that Dropbox was more expensive or whatever “the storage for the price just doesn't add up” was supposed to mean.
Okay, that's a start, do you think you can explain some of the analysis backing the opinion which you assumed everyone else shared?
> Security: If you think that's a judgement call, fine, if you think that the dropbox hack is a judgment issue.
If we stopped using any company which has had a security problem, we wouldn't be using computers. That's why I said it was a judgement call: one incident years ago is not much of a trend line so different people might reasonably have different comfort levels.
> Pricing: For Joe Bloggs, 100GB is generally enough. Google handily offers that for $2. With Dropbox, there's a cliff - a few gig for free or a terabyte for $10/m. Why no middle ground? Both Apple and Google offer scaled plans, why doesn't Dropbox?
Oh, now there's a valid question about the business model: perhaps they should have a middle tier. That's what you should have said instead of claiming that Dropbox was more expensive or whatever “the storage for the price just doesn't add up” was supposed to mean.
How is a poor business model related to market share ?
That's a good question/point and suggests a lack of education of its users of alternatives which are cheaper/better/more reliable.
I hope on Android they support SAF (Storage Access Framework) soon. Since I don't want to include N cloud SDKs for each point-to-point integration, my app only supports what SAF does -- and sadly dropbox support is missing.
isn't that what cloudrail claims to provide?
Given that Apple was spending in the order of $1 billion to store iCloud data in AWS I don't think this claim is exactly credible.
Dropbox reportedly had to move 500PB of data off of AWS which at a very naive $0.03 per GB per month would only be around $180MM per year. $0.03 is probably higher than the rate dropbox pays per GB but I'm ignoring network ingress/egress costs.
From those back of the envelope calculations I think it's safe to say that iCloud is very likely larger, or at least a similar size to Dropbox.
https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastr...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3045436/data-center-cloud/app...
Dropbox reportedly had to move 500PB of data off of AWS which at a very naive $0.03 per GB per month would only be around $180MM per year. $0.03 is probably higher than the rate dropbox pays per GB but I'm ignoring network ingress/egress costs.
From those back of the envelope calculations I think it's safe to say that iCloud is very likely larger, or at least a similar size to Dropbox.
https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastr...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3045436/data-center-cloud/app...
Maybe. This report seems to just take Dropbox Google Microsoft and Box into account. But is iCloud really that big when you talk about usage? They store tons of data but most of it might be just iOS backups which are activated by default for every user. Consider that usage or not.
I think so - and the fact that it's so in the background speaks to how well the user experience is designed for iCloud. Apple pretty much surreptitiously hides the backup of contacts, photos, calendars, email (yes - a lot of people use iCloud mail), and lastly documents. The fact that Apple was so late to the game on iCloud Drive was that a lot of the shit that the average person doesn't want to manually back-up and monitor are handled in the background by Apple ("magically" to use their term.) I personally love Dropbox, but I would find it a nuisance to manage my contacts, or anything else beyond my documents and occasional photos backup.
Therefore, regardless of manual input necessary, it should still count as usage. I imagine a lot of people store backups on Dropbox, and that looks like it's counted in the article.
Yet, I am kind of surprised that the prevalence of Android software doesn't correlate to Google Drive market share.
Therefore, regardless of manual input necessary, it should still count as usage. I imagine a lot of people store backups on Dropbox, and that looks like it's counted in the article.
Yet, I am kind of surprised that the prevalence of Android software doesn't correlate to Google Drive market share.
Re: Google Drive being less than you expect... Lots of handset makers and carriers put their own crappy cloud backup software on there and attempt to push that.
e.g. Verizon has their own cloud storage service.... it's annoying on Android, not sure if it exists on iOS.
e.g. Verizon has their own cloud storage service.... it's annoying on Android, not sure if it exists on iOS.
It would be awesome if they put a simple text editor in their IOS and web app.
dropbox has a better desktop client to share stuff. It makes the difference to end users. But it's slow sync outside US.