I have been using Picasa to store photos for years and have been waiting for Google to have a way I could store the rest of my files but they are nuts if they think I will pay almost three times what I am paying now. Plus I do not want yet another monthly fee they need to at least have annual billing.re

Are they doing the new coke thing here or something.

It's true, they're charging far more than they were yesterday, but yesterday you couldn't do with that space what you can do today (I hope that was clear).

Besides, it's still far cheaper than the main competition. Dropbox costs a good deal more.

It's really all about what you need to do. Google Drive won't be for everybody, that's for sure. It's best for people who want a lot of document collaboration with a Dropbox structure, because Dropbox doesn't have document editing built in.

I think the fact that Google Drive replaces Docs is very telling. It's basically an extended version of Docs with Dropbox functionality and ties into some of Google's other products (Picasa Web Albums, Google+, etc). If that's not your thing, there are other services out there. Have you looked into Flickr for your photo storage, for example?

However, to speak hypocritically for a second, I'm certainly glad that I can keep my old plan. I was paying $50/year for 200GB, and apparently as long as I keep up with those payments, I can keep it. Otherwise I'm looking at $120/year for the same thing but with monthly billing (I agree, they really need an annual option, even if there's no discount for it). If I eventually have to move up to the more expensive plan, though, it's not going to be the end of the world.

Anyway, I'm a pretty big fan of it already, but that should surprise nobody here. The launch of Drive actually got me to finish off a project I've been meaning to finish for a long time. I've been collecting PDF manuals for all the stuff in our house, and I'd started organizing them on Google Docs so I could share them with my wife and we wouldn't have to have the usual "drawer of manuals." I'd uploaded a bunch of them already, but I had about 40 of them that were still thrown into a folder awaiting renaming and uploading.

Now, the process has already been very easy. You could just drag and drop documents from Explorer into Docs in the browser, and you were done, but for some reason that was still enough of a barrier. Being able to drag and drop between explorer windows, however, made be sail through the process in no time. So yeah, I'm a believer (again, no surprise there, huh? ).

It's true that I can put more types of files on there now but what's it to them. The size of the files is all that should matter to google not if it's a jpg or a pdf. That's why I always thought it was so dumb that I couldn't upload any file I wanted already. I have just been attaching them to an email and storing them in gmail.

I don't really care about the structure I just want someplace online I can put my files I don't wanna lose. I don't have a ton of stuff so if could be a long time before my 80GB is full.

I haven't looked at any other photo storage because I have been happy paying 20 bucks a year for 80GB on Picasa for years but when I fill up my 80 I will be looking.



That is what made me look at the prices. I started putting all of the manual I have pdf's of on there and noticed my space shrinking so I checked out the prices.

It's too big of a price increase at once. If my 44 ounce diet coke I paid 1.50 for today is 4 bucks tomorrow I will not be buying even if it was still a deal compared to the competition.

Crashplan for backup. They won't index and sell access to your data like Google already does.

If you've already signed up for Microsoft Skydrive you can login and claim 25GB of free storage. Plus SkyDrive already has an iOS apps while Google Drive is "coming soon". If your a new user SkyDrive is 7 GB free for new users, $10 per yer for 20GB. It appears to be a pretty good bet to me.

Does Google Drive do binary diffs, to minimize uploading when a file changes?

I doubt I'd pick Google Drive due to not being in Google's ecosystem much, but I am in the market for a replacement for iDisk. The one big annoyance with iDisk has been it's need to fully upload any file, even if just one bit changed in it.

I'm going to have to look into what I'm paying (if anything) for my additional Picasa storage, but I just setup my Google Drive and discovered I have 85GB to play with.


This is quite a bit more than what I was expecting.

I also have 25GB on Skydrive because I'm a legacy user and I pay for 50GB on Dropbox (actually have 62GB thanks to referrals). The amount of cloud storage I have now is getting a little crazy.

Looks like I'm paying $20 per year for the Picasa storage. I don't know how it got to this point since it was $25 per year for 6GB of storage when I initially upgraded back in 2006.

Somewhere along the line, it became $5 less per year for 79GB more.

It's not a matter of what you're able to put up there (you could put up pretty much any type of file before yesterday), it's a matter of how easy it is to use now, and how much bandwidth they're going to need for this file syncing stuff. Before, you would just put this stuff on Google Docs and it would stay there. Now you can have all the computers in your home connected to Google Drive, and if you upload 30GB of files from one of them they're going to have to come down to the others. I know Google has peering agreements and everything, but that's going to be a lot of data going through their pipes.


This is where I agree with Bruno (not about the data selling, that's stupid), but while these services can technically be used for backup, I wouldn't use them as such. Crashplan is far better for this sort of thing, and costs much less. You just can't do anything with that data when it's online, but that's why it's a real backup. Drive, Dropbox, Skydrive, etc are file syncing tools first, backup tools second or third...

Again, it's really whatever works for you. This is a segment where it's not all about space/cost. If that were the case, Dropbox wouldn't be doing as well as it is considering it's pretty much the most expensive of the lot. I use Drive now because I use Google's other stuff, and because it essentially has an Office ecosystem built in, so I don't have to use Microsoft's products. Admittedly, MS's online Office product is more full featured but I don't need/want it.


I don't believe it does, but I haven't seen anything about it. I'm not sure if I see what the big deal is in avoiding the full upload of a 30 page document, but then again I'm blessed with really good bandwidth


I was going to mention this too. I remember that at some point, the price I was paying stayed the same but I got more space. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened again, and that they're just being cautious for now.

Data mining, information/statistics selling Matt. While Google won't be selling your files, I'll bet my left nut that they're indexing and combing through them to augment the profile they have on you - and that is used to sell ads. Google is an ad company. Period.

Google could offer the service for free and I still wouldn't take them up on it. Likewise, if I was using a different service and it was suddenly acquired by either Google or Facebook, that data would be deleted immediately.

yeah they have been increasing the space while keeping the price the same over the years that is why I was shocked by this new plan.

I'm the opposite I dont care if they look at my data and use it to pick what ads to show me as long as they give me what I want. It would bug me if they started having really annoying ads but I barley notice the ones they have now now.


I have been looking at baby stuff a lot so I get baby stuff ads big deal.

I'm just trying to say that one shouldn't expect their private files to be private when they keep them with Google. Many people however will have the opposite (and reasonable) expectation.

The least of anyone's concerns should be the actual ads that are displayed to them while using Google's services. It's what they're doing (or can do) with the data that concerns me personally. I don't know, or know of, anyone directly nor indirectly that doesn't have some information they keep private.

I agree about google and private files I just don't have anything I care if they see. I'm not planning on running for office or anything

What are they doing with the data besides figuring out what ads to show me and recommend stuff?

Making a killing on tinfoil hats.

ROFL

tanstaafl.

Sharing it with any USA three-letter-agency that asks.

I'm sure my baby pictures, tax forms, and owners manuals will get me in trouble for something then.

I thought Google had a history of fighting as long as possible when the three lettered agencies knocked. Or am I misremembering ?

They openly document the number of user data requests and pulldown notices. And yep, even Canada has asked and been given info, though adjusted for the population differences, the US has still asked for 10 times more.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/map/

As much as I'd like to be harsh on Google in this case, this is really more of an industry problem. If users want their data in the cloud, and accessible in the cloud without native local apps, that data has to live somewhere accessible. To you, to the company hosting it, and to the nice people with 3 letters on their jacket at the door.

YMMV of course, depending on what data you put in the cloud. Just make sure the manuals you upload aren't going to get you in trouble if someone with a wild imagination starts making links between the different types of products you own.

Blender... Det.cord... Knife Sharpener... Industrial fertilizer...

The pricing structure has also changed, and not in a good way. I currently have the 20gb for $5/year plan, I can "upgrade" to 25gb at $2.49/month which comes out to $29.88 I though storage costs were coming down? Granted, I can stay on the old plan, as long as I don't need more space and keep may payment information upto date.

Old Pricing structure (prices are yearly)
20 GB - $5
80 GB - $20
200 GB - $50
400 GB - $100
1 TB - $256
2 TB - $512
4 TB - $1024
8 TB - $2048
16 TB - $4096

New Pricing structure (prices are monthly) (yearly cost)
25 GB - $2.49 ($29.88)
100 GB - $4.99 ($59.88)
200 GB - $9.99 ($119.88)
400 GB - $19.99 ($239.88)
1 TB - $49.99 ($599.88)
2 TB - $99.99 ($1199.88)
4 TB - $199.99 ($2399.88)
8 TB - $399.99 ($4799.88)
16 TB - $799.99 ($9599.88)

Yes, that's what we've been discussing. I was trying to convey that the pricing has changed because the way you use the space is different. Google is going to have a heck of a lot more bandwidth usage with Drive in addition to people storing more on their servers. That's why there's the price increase. It has nothing to do with the cost of hard drives.

And again, I'm sure these new prices will come down over the years.

Doh! I got distracted by the tin foil hats
But I agree, the new product features are very different from the old product, and, presumable (too tired to check) comparable with competitors offerings. In most cases the price jump is x2.4, but at the bottom end it is a x6 jump. Granted $30 isn't dreadful to have easy access to my tax docs and diesel/fertilizer recipes

Sigh... I guess I'm just not a sophisticated enough user to understand this.

For less than 1/10 that price, I bought a 2TB drive and I keep my data myself. I save a fortune in tinfoil every year that way.

Of course, I don't have an iPad or an iPhone or any sort of mobile computing device. When I compute, it is at my desk with a really nice keyboard and a 27" monitor. I don't do mobile. Period. So it is no disadvantage to me to have all my data safe and secure and in the only place I have the equipment to access it.

tanstaafl.

Yeah but then you have to back it up and if your house burns down you lose it anyway unless you have an off site backup.

I mostly put pictures on Picasa to have them backed up off site someplace and so other people can see them.

I do. A couple of 2TB hard drives at my neighbor's house, updated every couple of months or so. Other backups are kept on-site, and updated every week or so.

While my data is important to me, none of it is "mission critical." I wouldn't be happy if I lost it, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it either. Its loss wouldn't change my life.

tanstaafl.

Even if you did, there are ways to make your data (stored at home) accessible when you're on the move.

You're giving yourself the answer as to why this type of service isn't for you. There's several "I's" and "my's" in there, so no, this type of thing isn't for you, but it's for a large percentage of computer users out there, particularly the ones who aren't good about keeping a schedule for backups (which is pretty much everyone).

This is something I tell you every time you bring this up: people aren't good about backing up their data! I keep coming across clients whose backup plan consists of a drive in their closet that hasn't been brought out in eight months. These clients are sometimes architects, lawyers, or even just a lady whose husband died a couple years ago and hasn't backed up any of the photos from their last months together.

So yes, Doug, services like this are very important.

Besides, for the cost of those two 2TB drives you have at your neighbors house, I have four years of unlimited backup protection for my entire family.

(by entire family I mean up to 10 computers)

I'll go even further than this. If you want to group the entire world together and get really general, I'll give you "no one backs up their data at all."

That's far more accurate. Honestly, of my neighbors who are very close friends (let's say 5 families), there is only 1 that I know backs up their data and has been doing it for over a year (at my insistence). I've gotten another one to back up some data to iCloud and I'm trying to get the others on board. In fact, the others have external WD pocket drives and the like with their original photos - and they use these drives for daily moving of files around as well or to play media on their media streamers. Accidents waiting to happen.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I guess I was mostly thinking of the people who have ever even thought briefly about backups, but that's still a small portion of the population. Even among those people, their backup behaviors are abysmal.

That's why services like Crashplan are so important: precisely because they don't have to do ANYthing to back up. They use the computer exactly like they did before, only now if something happens they're covered.

Take the human behavior out of the mix if you want to back up safely

I know where you're coming from. Of the people I know personally, I think I am the only "backupper." I have +/- 3TB of data, all of it backed up on premises, and 99.9% of it also backed up off-premises. Sometime next month I'll update the off-site backups to pick up that last 1/10%.

I've been working with computers since 1976, when hardware had nothing like the reliability of today's machines, and I had first-hand knowledge of the necessity of good backups. My work computer had a massive 10MB capacity (one fixed disk and one removable in a box the size and shape of a two-drawer filing cabinet) and backups took nearly an hour. But I did them, and kept the habit. Even so, I had a big scare when the hard drive went up in smoke (literally - an electrolytic capacitor the size of a soda pop bottle popped) and without that computer two radio stations and a television station would have been off the air. The service rep had to fly in from Anchorage (360 miles) and work overnight to get us going, but he did manage to save the data.

Ahhhh, the good old days.

tanstaafl.

I think most people figure that they don't have a backup (excluding insurance) for other tangible items in their lives, so they apply the same logic, to computer data. And while it's true that there are many catastrophes that can completely and instantly devastate tangible property and possessions, it doesn't take an otherwise (or typically) significant event to completely wipe computer data.

A 12" drop can kill a drive. And that's an easy to imagine scenario that needs only a momentary loose grip or a quick snag of a USB or power cable as someone or even a pet walks by.

Unfortunately I've had the opportunity (misfortune?) to tell friends "you should have had a backup" more often than helping them actually implement a backup strategy.

I think you're right that they're thinking that way, and while you're right about how much easier it is to lose digital data, I think the real reason a backup solution should be implemented is because of how freaking easy it is.

If a fire came along and claimed all your photo albums, you're screwed. It was always possible to have a "backup" of all your photos buy simply buying two prints of them all and keeping the second copy somewhere else, but that's difficult and expensive.

Now there's really no excuse. For $69, anyone can back up 10GB of data for four years. And in fact, Crashplan is completely free if you're just backing up to an external drive, which is better than nothing.


Ugh. I hate doing that. I've now implemented a policy where after the first visit to a new client, if they don't have a backup plan in place (which is 99% of them), I am certain to mention it. Frankly, I do this for my own piece of mind. I hate the thought of someone losing all their digital photos. But at least if I get that call down the road, they can't claim I never brought up the idea of backing up those precious memories...

Peripherally related... I see that today Google has upped my GMail storage to a full 10 gigabytes.

tanstaafl.