Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Rolls Out Online Storage Services

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the instant-access-warez-stash dept.

Google 285

An anonymous reader writes "The associated press reports that Google is slated to provide online storage at a price. From the article: 'Web search and Internet services company Google Inc. on Friday began selling expanded online storage, targeted for users with large picture, music or video file collections. The prices range from $20 per year for 6 gigabytes of online storage; $75 per year for 25 gigabytes of storage; $250 per year for 100 gigabytes of storage; and $500 per year for 250 gigabytes of storage.' Is this too expensive for what there offering, or are you going to make use of it?"

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes, it's too expensive (5, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187861)

Well, that about does it for comments here.

Re:Yes, it's too expensive (2, Informative)

thornomad (1095985) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187907)

Apple's .Mac gives you 10GB for $99 per year -- and I think there are quite a few people who have signed on (mostly because it says "Mac" somewhere in the URL) despite the high price and poor service (IMO). I think the same will happen with Google (with or without the poor service).

Re:Yes, it's too expensive (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188041)

Well, except backup storage which are easy to use it offers e-mail and jabber (i think) which isn't worth much, space for a blog, webpage, podcast, photo album, .. in a way which is easy to use. It also let you share your calendar info with others.

Re:Yes, it's too expensive (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188431)

Not to mention that they give you a free application or game every few months (or at least they used to). (And yes, I know it's not really "free").

Re:Yes, it's too expensive (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188141)

Its to late. Their already lots of comments. I assume there here to ad there inciteful comments. Don't loose your cool if they contain lots of grammer errors.

Re:Yes, it's too expensive (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188257)

beautiful in a way that brings tears to my eyes. truly a work of art.

Re:Yes, it's too expensive (0, Offtopic)

akarnid (591191) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188619)

When gems like this show up I cry aloud for my lack of mod points. I also think there in tent is to ad to teh discushion.

Old new: It's called gmail (4, Interesting)

Bomarc (306716) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187873)

Re:Old new: It's called gmail (2, Informative)

dj_tla (1048764) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188435)

Yeah, that's actually what the storage is for. From the article:

"the storage can be used across several Google products, including photo site Picasa; Gmail, a Google email application; and Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google's office applications."
Gmail users can purchase it by going to Settings (top right of the gmail interface), then Accounts, then check out the new "Add additional storage" row. Or, you can just straight to https://www.google.com/accounts/PurchaseStorage [google.com]

Not quite GDrive, or even S3... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20187875)

It's cheaper than Amazon's S3 once you factor in bandwidth, but all this really is is supplemental storage for GMail and Picasa. You'd need something hackish like GMail Drive to use it for anything more. Give me FTP, HTTP, SFTP, etc, access and then we'll talk.

So this was their plan all along (3, Insightful)

msblack (191749) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187879)

So when will they start charging everyone who has used Picassa these new annual fees? I'm sure a lot of people will gladly pay hosting fees.

Re:So this was their plan all along (5, Informative)

glop (181086) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187981)

You can already pay with PicasaWeb. That allows you to have more that 1GB. The 1GB option will likely stay free as a way to attract customers.

Is that all they're offering? (4, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187887)

So I read the article, and all it says is that the stuff you store can be used with Google products like Picasa, Gmail, Google Docs, etc. But, can't anything I store on my own hard drive be uploaded to those apps too?

I can get 500 GB of local storage for $100, and I don't have to worry about what some corporation is going to do with my data. If the only "advantage" to Google's storage is that I can use it with their products, what's the point? Surely Google must have something more to offer than the article states. As it stands, this looks like a great deal if it were 1998, but not so much today.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (5, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187943)

> I can get 500 GB of local storage for $100

Yes, and I can get a pair of shoes or a blowjob for that too. What's that got to do with online storage, which presumably you put online for a reason?

Re:Is that all they're offering? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20187983)

>>> Yes, and I can get a pair of shoes or a blowjob for that too.

Which store does that combo? I'm heading there as soon as I find out!

Re:Is that all they're offering? (0, Redundant)

romydog (540023) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188409)

Good one. Mod this up, plz :-)

Re:Is that all they're offering? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188425)

Read more carefully. They don't offer it as a combo, it's either/or ... either the shoes or the blowjob.

If you're looking for a combo then $100 will get you a pair of sandals and a reacharound.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188625)

Yor doin it wrong. You buy the shoes for your girlfriend.

Wait, this is slashdot...

Re:Is that all they're offering? (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188021)

That's my point, the "advantage" the article talks about is that you can use the storage with Google's own products. If you could use the storage to, say, host a website or something, then it might be worth it. If all I can do is use it on Google's product offerings, it is a rip off.

 

Re:Is that all they're offering? (2)

nmos (25822) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188611)

One of the advantages of having non-local storage are that it is safe from fire/flood/theft/whatever that might happen to your local storage. Another advantage is that it makes it easy to share data among users at multiple locations. There are obviously disadvantages too such as slow access speed, high cost, etc but I'm sure some folks will find it useful.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188275)

> I can get 500 GB of local storage for $100

Yes, and I can get a pair of shoes or a blowjob for that too.

Ha! I have a girlfriend, so I can get a blow job for free.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188491)

tanstaafl - most especially in the case of relationships.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188527)

Eh, US of A is so expensive! In Amsterdam you only have to pay 40 euros!

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188621)

I can get 500 GB of local storage for $100
What's that got to do with online storage, which presumably you put online for a reason?
I can also get 24/7 always-on Internet access for less than $66.67 a month.

2 * (250 GB at $500/yr.) == 500 GB at $1000/yr.

500 GB for $100 leaves $900/yr for access service. Say $100 for a UPS for the server and router. That leaves $800/yr / 12mo/yr == $66.67/mo. That's without amortizing the cost of the drive and UPS over multiple years, which over time would pay for the power. And besides, I'd probably be paying for that Internet access whether I used Google or myself as my on-line data server.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

SteelFist (734281) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188045)

Well, one of the key advantages of a system like this is having the offsite backup of files -- I can have 10 different hard drives all backing up my data, but if they are all in my apartment and something catastrophic happens to them, then what good are they? This way, I can have a way to recover my data if, for example, a fire burns down the apartments destroying all my DVD backups and hard disk backups. Yes, I know I will have bigger problems than this in such an event, but it's one less thing to worry about.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

dmpyron (1069290) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188115)

I keep my backups in my safe deposit box.

For $500 I can get a 1TB NAS. Or a 250GB USB/Firewire drive and a night in a very nice hotel.

And anybody who's paying $500 for a pair of shoes or a hummer is paying too much.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

MightyMait (787428) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188307)

I keep my backups in my safe deposit box.

For $500 I can get a 1TB NAS. Or a 250GB USB/Firewire drive and a night in a very nice hotel.

And anybody who's paying $500 for a pair of shoes or a hummer is paying too much.
Actually, $500 for a Hummer (even the tiny H3) would be a pretty good deal!!

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

durdur (252098) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188051)

Despite my concerns about somebody remote and maybe not devoid of evilness having my data, I find some attraction to having my data securely stored and backed up outside my premises. But yeah, I want that to cost less and I probably would probably also want some wider bandwidth, not just crappy DSL, to connect me to it, before it would become really attractive. I expect I'll get those things, eventually.

By the way, I have yet to figure out what is so good about Picasa. They have a neat hack where they can let you geotag your photos but otherwise it doesn't seem impressive at all: Adobe Lightroom is much slicker, IMHO.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188197)

I'd jump on it if they did something like what mozy does. You can generate your own strong encryption key, and only encrypted data will get stored on the server. All encryption/decryption occurs locally on your computer. That way, nobody can get any data out of the files on the server.

The problem, of course, is whether or not the software to access the service will generate "backup" keys for hive.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

Braino420 (896819) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188485)

Is there a reason you are incapable of encrypting the data yourself? You know, encrypt/decrypt locally on your computer. You would be sure they didn't have access to your key then.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188067)

What's Next for Google? Google OS online? (Google Linux online)

re: disaster recovery? (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188349)

My first thought about these services is, it has real potential for people who need to ensure they don't lose important photos or other documents.

Sure, you can set up regular backups to an external hard drive, set up a fault-tolerant RAID system perhaps, or burn your important stuff to DVD or CD. But none of that helps if your house catches on fire while you're out and all those things go up in flames. Backups also have the nasty tendency to be "out of reach" when you need them. (EG. You go on an important business trip and your laptop's hard drive crashes. You can probably borrow a loaner to get your business presentations done, but what about the data itself?)

The big question is always, how easy is it to get your data uploaded to them? Most home users are using cable or DSL where they may get good download speeds, but their upload speeds are relatively poor. If they decide to upload several gigabytes of photos, they may get frustrated or confused with how long it takes to finish that. I think software is needed to handle this gracefully ... uploading in the background and giving the user a small status icon they can check (by rolling the mouse over it or something). You can't expect people to sit for an hour in some browser window with a progress bar drawn that hasn't moved in the last 10 minutes, with some kind of "Please wait....." message up there.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

booyagrandma (1058640) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188369)

i'd argue that being able to access your data from anywhere over the internet will provide a lot of value for average customers. so using it with their products isnt the only advantage; not everyone wants to mess around with rdesktop or the like.

not that i'll be using it.

Re:Is that all they're offering? (1)

Blobule (913778) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188579)

While I agree it's quite expensive especially since it's recurring. One advantage to be had is that it provides a mechanism for an off-site storage location. Your house or business burns down and you still have your data. Part of the question I guess is how easy it would be to backup data to the remote storage area. I imagine that will become very easy using a fuse driver to mount the google storage space as a hard drive. This is superior to using gmail since one would presume changes to the storage mechanism would cause corruption grief :)

Finally! (1)

bigtangringo (800328) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187891)

I've been waiting forever for them to come out with something like this. I'm sure they'd be required to hand over any data if the men who ride in black helicopters come asking, so it's a good thing there's TrueCrypt :D

Re:Finally! (1)

bigtangringo (800328) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187969)

Ah hell, looks like I've spoken too soon. It appears to only be extra storage for existing services :-\

Doomed (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20187893)

Way too expensive. Portable hard drives (or soon, larger capacity flash drives) are already all the rage: they are cheaper, faster, and aren't limited by the user's broadband internet connection. What was Google thinking on this one?

Re:Doomed (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188065)

What was Google thinking on this one?

Gippy: I see you are uploading pictures of flowers. Perhaps you would be interested in buying some dahlia bulbs for Bulbs backwards R Us.

Re:Doomed (1)

zero2k (453777) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188105)

You seem to be living in the closet. Its purpose is for "online" data distribution, ie families and friends sharing photos and video clips, photographers showcasing their client portfolio, e-merchants advertising and cataloging their products, and the list goes on.

Re:Doomed (3, Interesting)

WombatDeath (681651) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188109)

I can see myself signing up to something like this: it's basically an inexpensive way to ensure that the stuff I really want to keep is safe and available. I trust Google's back-up processes far more than I trust my own, and this way I don't have to piss about with external storage which can be lost/damaged/stolen.

Re:Doomed (1)

WombatDeath (681651) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188231)

As an aside, I liked the up-beat end to the article.

"Web search and Internet services company Google Inc. on Friday began selling expanded online storage ...blah blah blah...Google shares fell $2.08 to $512.65 in afternoon trading."

Re:Doomed (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188343)

While I'm not saying I'm "Mr. Backup" I do feel pretty good about my backup procedures over Google's for now. Remeber this little event [techcrunch.com] ? Now to be fair they worked hard with people and admitted responsibilty right up front but in the end there was data that they simpy could not recover.

The only advantage here over doing it yourself that I can see is the geographic seperation between yuo and your backups. If your building burns down but all the backup tapes are in the office then you're screwed. Smarter plans include taking the backups offsite but for personal data that's a pain.

If I were to use this at all it would be in conjunction with my own personal backup and storage plan. The google storage would be relegated to the status of safety net. Without bothering to link to any for now I would guess that there are cheaper solutions out there for this scenario.

Re:Doomed (1)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188183)

...that you can access it from any computer in the world at any time at a speed that will only be limited by YOUR connection?

Privacy? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20187895)

So, is google going to search through all my content to see what I have?

Then send me more targeted advertisements when I use their services? You know that they can link all that up.

Just how "do no evil" will google be with all this information on you available at their fingertips?

I suppose you could just always encrypt all your uploads... hmm.

Re:Privacy? (2, Funny)

accessdeniednsp (536678) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187999)

That would be OK too, because then they can detected it encrypted with "foo algorithm" and send you a targeted advertisement that "Biz bang Algorithm is better" and then offer you links to crypto products and stuff. Either way, they win :) It's brilliant.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188599)

So, is google going to search through all my content to see what I have?

I forsee a massive eruption in ameteur pornography available through google searches in the near future.

I will probably use it. (1)

Pinkfud (781828) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187899)

Yes, it's a bit costly. But for all the times I've wanted to be able to transfer stuff from one place to another without having made any plans for it (like burning a DVD), and given the reliability of Google, I'll probably buy the 6G plan for myself.

Re:I will probably use it. (2, Insightful)

DonCarlos (222830) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188099)

It still may go faster to just burn these data on DVD and send it using DHL/USPS than first waste hours uploading such amount of data and then getting it back.

I won't be making use of it (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187903)

who knows what kind of data mining they'll be doing.

Re:I won't be making use of it (1)

undercanopy (565001) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188019)

you think? that sounds more like the arena of a cheap/free service. at these rates, it had better be private. how to ensure that w/o encrypting your data first? that's a different story.

Re:I won't be making use of it (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188071)

You're right. Just like a game manufacturer wouldn't dream of trying to make extra money by slapping advertisements all over a game I already paid $60 for, Google would never try to make extra cash data mining storage that they are already being paid for.

Re:I won't be making use of it (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188125)

at these rates, it had better be private.
You think that just because you give them 20 bucks a year, they care about your privacy?

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20187919)

$500 per year for 250 gigabytes of storage
Let's just say I'm not going to move my pr0n collection to their service anytime soon.

Well, (5, Insightful)

martinelli (1082609) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187927)

I've always had an issue with online storage. Sure, you have a massive capacity. But, think about the time it takes you to upload, download, etc. For the $500 a year pricetag on the 250gb drive, I could go out and purchase a few 250gb external drives. Although online storage is great for protecting against a physical disaster, it's simply too clumsy right now to be used effectively.

Re:Well, (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188057)

I've always had an issue with online storage. Sure, you have a massive capacity. But, think about the time it takes you to upload, download, etc. For the $500 a year pricetag on the 250gb drive, I could go out and purchase a few 250gb external drives. Although online storage is great for protecting against a physical disaster, it's simply too clumsy right now to be used effectively.


If you have a slow Internet connection (under 10Mbps upstream) and think that $500 annual fee is a lot for 250GB online space, you may not be in Google's target group. Go ahead and buy external disks, but it's not an option to those needing lots of high availability online disk space.

Re:Well, (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188503)

I have to agree. Even at decent connection speeds, uploading that much data would take quite a while (not to mention the price being a bit excessive). I also don't exactly trust Google with that much minable information.

Also, on your comment about external drives, the 320GB Wester Digital external drive that I picked up a couple of months ago was about $120.

I don't care (1)

wandm (969392) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187929)

I don't care if it were free. I don't want The Central Brain(TM) to scan my files.

Amazon S3 (5, Interesting)

Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187933)

I use Amazon S3 through Gorilla Disk. I also use it directly through Python and Ruby.

Amazon has it right in this instance. The cost is less and is dynamic.

I'm looking at starting a small app hosting company and S3 will definitely work better than Google, my costs grow with my business, no upfront expenses etc.

Re:Amazon S3 (1)

stirfry714 (410701) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188083)

Do you mean JungleDisk? I Googled for GorillaDisk, and couldn't find it...

Looks cool... I might have to check them out for my backups...

Re:Amazon S3 (1)

gordyf (23004) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188245)

I use JungleDisk on MacOS X and Linux, and it's awesome. Just Works.

$20 per year for 6 gigs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20187949)

why not signup for 2 gmail accounts, $free

$500 / 250 GB (1, Insightful)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187965)

Why do that when I can buy two $250 drives and put them in a mirror RAID array? I'll probably get more storage, and it will last longer.

Re:$500 / 250 GB (1)

igb (28052) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188151)

So long as your house doesn't burn down. And you don't get burgled. And you don't live somewhere prone to flood or hurricane. I'd merrily pay that sort of money for that sort of storage, because moving portable drives offsite is getting tedious. With my office hat on, the fibre pull completes Tuesday for 2Gbps to a datacentre in the next city to replicate 40TB to. Yeah, I have tapes: but moving them by hand is tedious. Same idea, smaller bill.

Re:$500 / 250 GB (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188177)

Assuming that your place is immune from fire, flooding and the like.

I use Carbonite for an offsite backup of files I'd really hate to lose. It's pretty good. FWIW I don't participate in their referral program, so my endorsement is from the heart.

Two Words (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188411)

Fire Safe

Hrm... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187971)

According to the company's official blog, the storage can be used across several Google products, including photo site Picasa; Gmail, a Google email application; and Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google's office applications.

Seems a little underwhelming - if they had a sanctioned Google Drive that I could connect to from Windows or Linux, anywhere in the world, that would be cool. FTP access would be nice. But to pay $20/year for 6 more gigs without any functionality I don't have now...nah.

Pipe (1)

DonCarlos (222830) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187977)

And what about the bandwidth?

Storage = Truck (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188335)

And again, online storage is something you just dump something on. It's a big truck. It's not a series of tubes.

Sincerely,
Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Reason for cost... (1)

Treskin (555947) | more than 7 years ago | (#20187989)

Possibly to prevent people using it for piracy? Obviously this would make for high speed transfers of large amounts of data. People who have a specific use for it likely won't mind the mid-level cost, but few people are going to blow that kind of money to use as a "distro" for software/movies etc. compared to other solutions.

GRAHHH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20187993)

It's THEY'RE. That is all.

Definitely too expensive (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188003)

I'm a customer a PowWeb, and for $5.77/mo I get:
# 300 GB Disk Space
# 3000 GB/mo Bandwidth
# FREE Domain Name
# Unlimited Mailboxes
# 75 MySQL Databases
# Host UNLIMITED Domains

Yes, it sounds like an ad, but no, it isn't meant to be... I was lazy and copied their site for what I get.

Sure, I don't get shell access, which sucks... but what do you expect for under $6/mo? It's plenty fine for my image galleries of hi-res images (they have an installer for Gallery also).

-RC

What does google offer... (2, Interesting)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188013)

That a $200 computer I can build with 750GB of storage and is always online cannot?

Given the occasional inaccessibility of GMail, if this data is not ALWAYS AVAILABLE, I don't see the point of the exercise. The only other advantage I can see are download speeds, but upload speeds are getting better day by day. If I pool with 3-4 other people for a solid internet connection (or if I am in college), I am all set...

Re:What does google offer... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188439)

What does Google offer that your $200 computer can't? Redundancy. Massive redundancy.

Expensive and unreliable? (4, Interesting)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188025)

For one, it's expensive; you could buy many times the storage by buying the hardware yourself; it would be cheaper to go with RAID-1 and replace the drives every year whether they needed it or not.

Also, even assuming that Google's new service is:
  • trustworthy (I.E. they don't peek at your data),
  • reliable,
  • secure (hackerproof and disasterproof; aren't they based in CA?), and
  • speedy (and it ain't ever gonna be as fast as a locally-attached HD)

...there's still the question of your own Internet connection; I for one don't want to lose access to my files every time my cable connection decides it needs a day off. It's been pretty reliable lately, but still.

On the "trustworthy" issue, I trust Google as much as just about any company -- but I don't trust anyone 100%, so why risk it?

Bottom line -- call me a dinosaur (OK, it fits; I enjoy BASIC and Assembler), but I'd rather do it myself.

Yeah, yeah, you say -- but what about portable storage? OK, I admit, this would be convenient -- but I still think the drawbacks (even money being no object) far outweigh bringing the data you need with you. Heck, for that money, you could seriously think about one of those new solid-state drives! How's that for reliability?

there (5, Funny)

N7DR (536428) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188027)

Is this too expensive for what there offering

Sigh.

Here we go again, wielding the language of Shakespeare with all the delicate sensitivity and purpose of a surgeon wielding a cosh.

Re:there (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188345)

Fine. Editors, please correct this typo. It should read: "Is this to expensive for what their offering."

Re:there (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188515)

Don't you mean "thair"?

I'm surprised that the comment picking up on the misspelling of "they're" (as in "what they are offering") as "there" is so far down the page :)

Re:there (2, Informative)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188569)

Sigh.

Here we go again, wielding the language of Shakespeare with all the delicate sensitivity and purpose of a surgeon wielding a cosh.


Sigh.

Here we go again. Another Brit using British slang and just expecting the rest of the world to understand. I had to go to dictionary.com, but for those of us who aren't Brits
cosh = bludgeon

Applications: Trickle backup (1)

Sanity (1431) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188037)

It seems that the most likely use of this is as a remote backup, given how cheap desktop storage is these days (about $2/GB last time I checked), and the bandwidth constraints of pulling large quantities of data from a remote server when you need it.

What is needed is a convenient automatic "trickle backup" system. This will do incremental backups to this service whenever you are online, but which is smart enough to stop if you need your internet connection, or if you disconnect. In such circumstances it will resume the backup process seamlessly once you go back online, or once your upstream is available again.

This seems like an obvious idea to me, and so it may already exist - but if not, I could see it being a very nice open source project. Unfortunately I've got one [freenetproject.org] or two [thoof.com] projects keeping me way too busy already or I would consider it.

To do it really-well might require server-side support though, so you could do things like coalescing incremental backups without having to pull the data back to the client and re-uploading.

Re:Applications: Trickle backup (2, Informative)

verbila (964789) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188173)

Mozy does this (http://www.mozypro.com/mozy_pro/comparison/), and they just started supporting Macs in addition to PCs. Great service. Simple, hassle-free, encrypted. No, I don't work for them. Just a satisfied user. They have a free version of their service, too (2Gb).

Re:Applications: Trickle backup (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188511)

You are living in 2002. Nowdays, storage is at 20c /Gbyte...

Re:Applications: Trickle backup (1)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188521)

I don't know if a convenient 'trickle' uploader exists yet, but I'm setting up a backup scheme for myself that uses duplicity [nongnu.org] to upload to Amazon's S3 [amazonaws.com] , and uses an EC2 [amazon.com] instance for a few hours each month to coalesce the incremental backups into a full backup. Since this is for my VPS, I don't worry too much about using a lot of bandwidth when it runs the backup (the incrementals are usually small anyway).

Same problem (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188047)

This has the same problem that XDrive had in 1995 and Eazel had in 1999: storage and networks have evolved at a pace where the latter is expensive and the former is cheap. The amount of storage you can efficiently access is just a fraction of a normal hard drive. If things had worked out differently, and we'd had DSL with 25 meg hard drives, it would have been completely different.

This is useful for w4r3z and child porn, nothing else.

Carbonite (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188061)


I am a reasonably satisfied with Carbonite. It's cheap and reasonably secure (data is encrypted).

However it is a pure backup service; it doesn't allow, for example, remote access to the backup from another machine, which would be useful on occasion.

Re:Carbonite (1)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188499)

And the encryption uses THEIR key. So your data is NOT private if they choose to look.

Companies are going to dig this (1)

atom.galaxy (1140985) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188077)

I'll bet my ears most companies are going to buy at least a part of this plan. Quite some large companies I know use Google docs, and this might be the very thing for the most crucial data (encrypted, of course). Sure, they might have backups in underground safes and everything, but I think that when it comes to backups, these people don't kid. It might be useful for other stuff as well, but I see this as a backup system.

ad-ish, but true (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188091)

Well since this story is mostly an advertisement, i'll point out that storage at Dreamhost (See sig) is far cheaper and you get all the perks of a full blwon web hosting service. Starts @ $9.99/mo for around 200GB storage, tons of bandwidth, ftp/sftp/ssh/telnet/etc access, databases, thousands of email accounts, free domain with the ability to host as many as you want, unlimited subdomains, user acount controls, clean server directory structure (ie, /home/username/mydomain.tld), etc, etc, etc..

go figure (1)

markybob (802458) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188175)

interesting that googling "google online storage" doesnt come up with the home page of this new service...in my book that means it doesnt exist :p

Depends on the Services that go with it! (1)

spiedrazer (555388) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188181)

If they are offering backup etc. than I would say it's worth the price!

Re:Depends on the Services that go with it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20188255)

They are not offering, there offering. That changes everything.

Re:Depends on the Services that go with it! (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188287)

Wrong...
You can get unlimited backup for $70/yr, go check out mozy.com

$500 for 250GB? That is bizarre, you can go buy a 500GB HD for a lot less than that, just spend that money buying hard drives every year, and you'll have 5 terabytes soon enough.

They're...not There (1)

crappyman (800832) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188251)

That is all. Try again and proofread, friends. Revision revision revision

Grammer (1)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188303)

I cannot stand seeing news articles where people don't know the difference between there, they're and their. That's just me though.

Re:Grammer (1)

xarnx (917943) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188597)

Ahem. It's spelled grammar.

Too expensive (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188377)

I use ixwebhosting.com for my websites, and for less than $150 a year I get 500gigs of bandwith a month and unlimited storage.

Granted I asked them and this doesnt mean upload a couple terabytes, but I have easily hosted over 60gigs with no problems.

And that's for a full out web hosting solution. Note: I dont work there or anything, just a very happy customer.

How is it practical to businsses or the consumer? (1)

ipyakuza (1135909) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188433)

I'm not sure how useful a solution this is for either the business or home user. Most US home users are on Comcast or DSL both which are slow in my book if you are trying to move large files too and from your online storage. The only people with that much patients are pirates or anyone downloading a linux distro :) It's much easier (and most importantly secure) to store your stuff on a micro portable drive these days and encrypt it. Speaking for businesses, I'm an IT manager and storing business related content (even the not so sensitive stuff) on public service providers systems makes little sense. Especially since these days many publicly traded companies have to worry about compliance (I don't think any smart company would put sensitive information on a share like this but hey, if it can, it will happen). The only useful means of online storage would be to hold content for download or playback linked from your site if you don't have a lot of bandwidth but expect a ton of visitors to flood the downloads. I don't know, I just don't see any practical use for it all.

Re:How is it practical to businsses or the consume (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188529)

I disagree as far as downloading is concerned, comcast at 8mbps is pretty fast, I can download a linux distro in ~ an hour, which is much better than it was 5-6 years ago.

Now, where this service fails is on the upload side. Everyone throttles upload to bizarre levels, 378kbps is good, some dsl will let you get 768... but either way, if you're going to be uploading 50GB, that is WEEKS of having your upstream bandwidth completely tapped.

I signed up for mozy (online backup) and discontinued after 1 month... I was trying to back up ~40GB, and it took nearly 3 weeks... and then failed, and I had to start over again. During this time because the upload is totally maxed out, the download suffers, latency goes through the roof, even just little web browsing is painful (like dial up speeds)... so this is why this is more than useless for a home user. For businesses that might have multi-meg uploads, it might be a little useful... but I'd rather just buy a linux box with a bunch of drives and get more storage for less locally.

Hard Drives (1)

pseudosero (1037784) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188465)

Are, according to my mental memory calculations, a dollar a gig.

Official post and links (4, Informative)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188547)

The Forbes article didn't link to it, so here's the official announcement from Google:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/simple-way- to-get-more-storage.html [blogspot.com]

Also, here's the link for actually purchasing the additional space:

https://www.google.com/accounts/PurchaseStorage [google.com]

At the time being, this doesn't seem to be a standalone storage service (the summary was kind of ambiguous about this), but rather a way to upgrade the space you have on additional Google services (gmail, Picasa, etc.). In any case, I'd really love it if they eventually came out with a storage service that you could use as a CVS/SVN repository.

Ouch... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 7 years ago | (#20188617)

For music at least I'd definitely go with mp3tunes [mp3tunes.com] . Their pricing model is much more consumer friendly (starting at free) and the service is purpose built. For general purpose storage, if I wanted or needed it I don't think I could justify paying that kind of price. Even though I'm sure their reliability is best of breed (which I know needs to be figured into the total cost, but 100GB these days is nothing).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?