Google's New Cloud Storage Plans Launch in the U.S.

[zorinlynx]

Why does Google constantly have to rebrand their stuff? Apple stays with consistent brands for years; Google sees this need to rename/rebrand everything constantly.

It's hard for me to put my trust in a company's services when they are changing them all the time. This is one of the reasons I'm a mostly loyal Apple customer, I think.

 

[69Mustang]

These arguments are sort of weak, generalized and deflective imo. Nothing in my quote has anything to do with Google or what Google offers. My quote was a response to @pika2000 implication that having financial means to afford one thing means it's okay to expect to be charged for another. That's dumb. To be clear, the premise is dumb, not Pika.

I mean really what are we arguing over here? You're talking about a person who's invested into the ecosystem and they've spent $2300 on devices, surely 24 dollars a year (for 200 gigs) to keep those devices synced up over the cloud is worth it.

Principle is the argument. You don't nickel and dime customers. Especially loyal customers. To point at the $12/$24 as the issue simply misses the point entirely. I've said it before, Apple would be better served offering no free storage at all. At least then it would look less like a cheap tactic to get someone to spend more money. "We will give you just enough to ensure you exceed the limit and have to buy more storage".

In a world where device sales are forecast to slow down a company must look for ways to monetize those devices which people already who again to remain profitable and growing. You could either monetize those devices by adding services (like cloud storage) or data mining activity and selling adds (like Google - actually Google does both...).

This argument rings hollow because Apple has a robust services category. It rings even more hollow because it prioritizes a company's profit over customers. I'd expect that mentality from the company. Not from actual customers - you know - the topic of my actual quote. Which is why I asked for help understanding that mentality. Stockholm-type Syndrome is the only answer that makes sense to me.

Could Apple increase their free tier to 15gigs to match Google? Sure, that would be a nice gesture to those who buy an expensive device from Apple. However, the person who has 2300 dollars worth of Apple devices probably is going to be on a paid storage tier as their needs will exceed any free offer a company would offer.

No one says they have to match Google's free tier. Like I said, I think they should get rid of it. BUT if they are going to have a free tier, it should at least be 5GB per device if they want to keep that number. If not, it should 20GB per account. Again, I'm more than comfortable with them getting rid of the free tier. As is, it's the equivalent of a drug dealer giving a new client a "free taste"

Bottom line - no matter what Apple offers for free we're always going to want more because in a smart business move Apple shouldn't be offering enough to satisfy the needs of all of its users.

No one's advocating for that. Least of all me. I've just never understood the mentality of a segment of Apple fans who will argue the merits of putting a corporations profits above the welfare of the consumer. To actively advocate giving more money to one of the richest corporations in the world simply because a person can afford to do so, is asinine imo.

Understand there are two differing perspectives: company and customer. Arguments for one aren't interchangeable with arguments for the other. My quote was about customer perspective. Your response was about company.

 

[deeddawg]

Data mining for advertising placement at no additional cost!

 

[MacBH928]

And then there are people that encrypt any sensitive data and still use Google as the cloud platform to store their data.

You can do that using the GDrive as a backup storage only, as this is not the case with maps, photos, youtube, profiles, searches, Google Docs, or e-mails. Storing your files in encrypted form will make it inaccessible for use of files on any other platform as the whole idea is to have your files accessed from anywhere. You want to access your files via your photoshop on iPad, and VLC on your Windows machine, and to send that picture to your friend to his iphone via iMessage.

I am guessing that its a real pain to back up your 200GB-1TB encrypted DMG files back and forth to the GDrive or any cloud storage.
[doublepost=1534428388][/doublepost]

Why I shifted from google all together including email to iCloud because I trust it and I feel better knowing I’m laying to keep my privacy unlike google where you pay them to steal your data to sell as you stated

its hard to migrate emails because then you have to change your email with all the services you signed up with, including software you bought. I have emails that I would like to migrate else where but I need them migrated with their original send/receive dates and in the same folder/label organization. I want as if the emails were always on the new email provider and not Google. Can't figure how to do that.

 

[hlfway2anywhere]

I've had the 100gb for $1.99 since May 26th. This isn't really new.

 

[DNichter]

I am surprised they don't just make it free. More data to mine for their advertising business.

 

[Phogro]

No one's advocating for that. Least of all me. I've just never understood the mentality of a segment of Apple fans who will argue the merits of putting a corporations profits above the welfare of the consumer. To actively advocate giving more money to one of the richest corporations in the world simply because a person can afford to do so, is asinine imo.

For a company to continue to employ talented people, support their current customer needs and introduce new products to its lineup, while fending of its competitors/legal battles it must continue to grow revenue and profits. It's even more important when a company is publicly traded and must balance customer needs against shareholder expectations.

To think that a company which invests billions of dollars into R&D every year doesn't deserve profit from its efforts is asinine imo.

Your whole argument is that Apple shouldn't nickel and dime, but you're fine with them not having a free tier at all is strange. Why does having a free tier make the current plans appear as nickel and dime?

Why are you against the free tier as a way of introducing people to the product? It offers a way for a new Apple customer to "try" the service. If they like what they see they can buy more storage and use it, if not there are other options available (like Google or DropBox or Box and others).

It would be nice to have 5gigs / device capped at say 20 gigs. Maybe the'll get there some day as storage continues to decrease in costs and people will continue to need more of it.

 

[Aston441]

5 gb for free has been a joke for quite a while. It was fine when you sold 16 gb iPhones and iPads.

Yes a pathetic joke. I turned it off, it was useless and annoying. All my storage is for free elsewhere. It's pathetic that Apple doesn't provide sufficient cloud storage to back up a $1200 phone without paying extra.

 

[69Mustang]

For a company to continue to employ talented people, support their current customer needs and introduce new products to its lineup, while fending of its competitors/legal battles it must continue to grow revenue and profits. It's even more important when a company is publicly traded and must balance customer needs against shareholder expectations.

To think that a company which invests billions of dollars into R&D every year doesn't deserve profit from its efforts is asinine imo.

Your whole argument is that Apple shouldn't nickel and dime, but you're fine with them not having a free tier at all is strange. Why does having a free tier make the current plans appear as nickel and dime?

Why are you against the free tier as a way of introducing people to the product? It offers a way for a new Apple customer to "try" the service. If they like what they see they can buy more storage and use it, if not there are other options available (like Google or DropBox or Box and others).

It would be nice to have 5gigs / device capped at say 20 gigs. Maybe the'll get there some day as storage continues to decrease in costs and people will continue to need more of it.

Hey bud. I am not as talented as you when it comes to multitasking topical arguments. Where you can intermingle arguments based on the company perspective and customer perspective as if they are equally applicable, I can't. I can't follow them either. So if we're going to continue the discourse, choose one perspective to discuss. Since I was discussing the customer perspective, I'd like to keep doing so. But since you only seem to have arguments based on a company perspective, I'd be willing to switch gears.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I am surprised they don't just make it free. More data to mine for their advertising business.

I always wondered the same thing. Back when I was a Google evangelist, Chromebooks gave me 100GB and 1TB for free, I got 96GB free lifetime because I was an early Google Storage paid user. Always wondered why they didn't just do free unlimited storage.

OneDrive went unlimited storage and found out the hard way when people started backing up universities of computers, tarabytes of ripped videos, and what not. They quickly went back to 1TB. This is my only guess as to why unlimited.

But why not 100GB free? My only guess is that MOST people I know don't even fill their 15GB free Google Drive storage. So Google charges a tiny bit for the extra storage.

I used to trust Google - they do a lot of good for the world (education, renewable energy, their giving app where you can donate to tons of charities for $0 overhead cost, etc...). But once they got rid of the "Do No Evil" and started doing things on Youtube I didn't agree with... decided it was time to rip Google out of my life. Wasn't easy... Took over a year and MANY failed attempts to leave. Now, Youtube, Google Photos, and gmail are the only google products I use if I have to.

----

I don't know what the anger is against the 5GB. It provides a "taste" of what iCloud is like, allows users to "test it" without signing up for anything permanently like most companies do when you want to "trial" test their products. The argument that Apple should be providing more storage for free is laughable imo. Would it be nice? Sure, but they're in the business of making $.

I'd be using iCloud primarily right now if it had selective sync. Because it doesn't, OneDrive is my primary cloud provider. I just wish OneDrive backed up my live photos . Microsoft's products are amazingly well made on Mac OS and OneDrive utilizes my 97/97 FIOS connection very well.

 

[Kiro]

If you buy a BMW, Benz, etc. (ie. "high-end performance cars"), you shouldn't have to pay for gas because the car was so expensive?

that's incorrect. that would be like saying apple should pay for the electricity

if you want to compare it to cars: bmw should not charge for the navigation system updates.
because they sold and advertised you a feature the product need to work properly (which is a navigation system or icloud...)

 

[nburwell]

I'll stick to the 50GB iCloud plan I'm on in which I pay $0.99/month. And no data mining!

 

[spacemnspiff]

Google should be paying YOU for allowing them access to YOUR data which they make money from.

No wonder they want to milk the cash cow, user data.

Google’s parent, Alphabet, is spending more money on lobbyists than any other corporation in America. Let that sink in for a bit, and for what reason are they spending so much, so that they can keep the party going until it cannot, user wakes up.

I am just painting a scenario, just because of all the data mining, advertising industry will have such an accurate profile on folks that they will wield power of differentiating product cost, people will be sold products at prices they feel comfortable to pay, the price will be based on where people live, how much they make and what other products that have been bought in the past. etc. Down the street in the so called bad neighborhood, same product will be sold for a cheaper price, based on the 'affordability index'.

I don't want such differentiation or discrimination driven primarily by user data to exist.

if you want to compare it to cars: bmw should not charge for the navigation system updates.
because they sold and advertised you a feature the product need to work properly (which is a navigation system or icloud...)

That's still not an analogy that captures the iCloud storage story. You analogy is more comparable to software updates that Apple provides for free.

A more apt car analogy would be, just because I drive more, the tires on the car should wear the same as the person who drives less, that would be pedantic. That would be analogous to a person who uses more storage than the 5Gb than that Apple that freely provides, which most people are satisfied with, unless you store photos or media, which the free storage wasn't meant for. I don't think it's hard to imagine that if you use more storage space you will have to pay more, just like buy more tires to drive more.

 

[Cosmosent]

Google One wins-out, BIG time:

1.) 15 GB FREE vs 5 GB FREE,

2.) MOST importantly, it supports ANY file type ... iCloud Photo Library is limited to ONLY those types AAPL has decided to support !

.hspx Container files will be ALL the rage by this time next month ... Off the Radar of most, but should NOT be ! ... HSPX is a much easier Alternative to HEIF Container files (for sharing/transferring a mix of Photos & Videos).

GOOG is going to soon experience a Flood of AAPL Fanboys & Fangirls signing-up for their FREE tier, specifically to tap into HSPX !

A key decision was made related to that, AFTER GOOG made their Google One announcement early yesterday ... specifically, many apps will soon be piggybacking their server-side infrastructure on Google One !

AAPL's market cap will Drop to Summer 2016 levels AFTER ALL this becomes common knowledge to Institutional Investors.

AAPL is a RE-active company & will be forced to offer what GOOG offers, but by then, it's probably too late for them ... the Die will then have been cast ... remember the piggybacking above.

Mobile market innovation is going to move very fast the next 45-60 days, & AAPL has NO chance of keeping up !

 

[themikedshaffer]

Hope someone at Apple is reading this
But really it won't matter if Apple goes to 15GB. The masses will scream for free 50GB.

And if they give a free 50GB, people will want 55GB for free, or 100GB....it just will never end.

 

[69Mustang]

Google’s parent, Alphabet, is spending more money on lobbyists than any other corporation in America. Let that sink in for a bit, and for what reason are they spending so much, so that they can keep the party going until it cannot, user wakes up.

I have no commentary on the rest of your data. But this here? Why would you quote such an easily disproved "fact"? When your first data point isn't true, it sorta reflects badly on the rest don'tcha think? Let that sink in for a bit.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I have no commentary on the rest of your data. But this here? Why would you quote such an easily disproved "fact"? When your first data point isn't true, it sorta reflects badly on the rest don'tcha think? Let that sink in for a bit.

I just assumed he meant tech.

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...ech-companies-spend-the-most-on-lobbying.aspx

https://money.cnn.com/2014/10/01/investing/companies-lobbying-10-biggest-spenders/index.html

(From Article above)
1. General Electric (GE): $134 million

2. AT&T: (T) $91.2 million

3. Boeing Co (BA): $90.3 million

4. Northrop Grumman (NOC): $87.9 million

5. Comcast Corp (CMCSA): $86.4 million

6. Verizon Communications: (VZ) $86.4 million

7. FedExCorp (FDX): $85.7 million

8. Exxon Mobil (XOM): $85 million

9. Lockheed Martin (LMT): $78.8 million

10. Pfizer (PFE): $77.8 million

...

16.Google (GOOG): $62.2 million

 

[lederermc]

Google should be paying YOU for allowing them access to YOUR data which they make money from.

Like Facebook and twitter

 

[spacemnspiff]

I have no commentary on the rest of your data. But this here? Why would you quote such an easily disproved "fact"? When your first data point isn't true, it sorta reflects badly on the rest don'tcha think? Let that sink in for a bit.

I didn't need to have data, I relied on a source, which hints at last year - 2017. Here is the excerpt

Microsoft had virtually no Washington presence before the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company in the 1990s. As recently as 2003, Google retained just two outside lobbyists in Washington; over the next decade or so, as it became the world’s dominant search engine, the company became a Beltway heavyweight, hiring lobbyists, wooing regulators and funding the research behind hundreds of Google-friendly studies on competition, copyright law and other topics. By last year, Google’s parent, Alphabet, was spending more money on lobbyists than any other corporation in America.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/facebook-google-privacy-data.html

Your turn to provide credible information...

 

[pika2000]

$1000 once, fine.

$1/month or more for the rest of my life, it is too expensive. My issue with cloud storage is its essentially locking you into perpetuity.

Really? How much do you spend on coffee each day? Snacks?
Get serious.

 

[nutmac]

Please help me understand this mentality. A multi-billion dollar corporation nickle and dimes customers for $1 a month and your response is snark... towards the customer? Stockholm Syndrome at it's finest. You're essentially saying because you can afford to pay for Apple kit, you should be willing to pay more? Sure.

$1000 phone - here's 5GB of free storage.
$1500 laptop - we already gave you 5GB of free storage. If you need more pay for it.
$500 tablet - already told you once, we gave you 5GB free with the phone. Open your wallet. We know you have money
$300 watch - you spent a lot money with us? And? Spend more if you want more storage. We gave you 5GB free.

The above kit isn't an exaggerated scenario. Lots of people have that and more. But your response to someone complaining about Apple being stingy with storage is... give them more money?

Apple wants you to buy cloud subscription. 5GB is essentially a free trial plan.

They way I justify $9.99/month 2 TB iCloud subscription is for "Optimize Storage" feature (my Photos library is 1 TB). Thanks to this feature, provided I have speedy Internet, I can buy iOS device or Macs with smaller storage space (64 GB on iOS, 256 GB on Mac) and still have enough storage space.

The only part I find stingy about Apple is that the company doesn't give iCloud Backup for free. Apple should offer iCloud Backup for free, at least equal to AppleCare warranty period of that device.

 

[Weaselboy]

Is there a practical solution that works where such a cloud drive can be used to create encrypted regular backups such as with TimeMachine, Superduper or CCC?

https://www.arqbackup.com

I use the app Arq for this. I backup online to Backblaze B2 servers, but it also works with Google Drive.

 

[spacemnspiff]

The only part I find stingy about Apple is that the company doesn't give iCloud Backup for free. Apple should offer iCloud Backup for free, at least equal to AppleCare warranty period of that device.

The part that isn't particularly clear here is, what does the backup include, 2TB of photos and videos? Well, that obviously cannot be free. The storage space heavy part of the backup is media, which can widely vary based on how much media is stored on a device, hence Apple cannot cater to that market because of high cost of variability.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I didn't need to have data, I relied on a source, which hints at last year - 2017. Here is the excerpt



Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/facebook-google-privacy-data.html

Your turn to provide credible information...

Dang... you were right (not just tech like I assumed). Wow...

Quoting from the source you listed: "By last year, Google’s parent, Alphabet, was spending more money on lobbyists than any other corporation in America." Article from 2018.

 

[69Mustang]

I just assumed he meant tech.

Unfortunately, that would be an incorrect assumption. He further clarified that he indeed meant more than any other corporation in America. Had he said tech corportation, it would have been correct. Any corporation, however, is simply wrong.

I didn't need to have data, I relied on a source, which hints at last year - 2017. Here is the excerpt
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/facebook-google-privacy-data.html

Your turn to provide credible information...

Sure. Let's start with historical data from 1998 thru 2018 on Lobbyist Spending Data from Opensecrets.org. Since who spends what seems to be the question, let's just go straight to Top Spenders. You will notice that no matter how far you go back will you ever find Alphabet or Google the top spender. As I said, it's easily disproved. My information is just a wee bit more sourced, don't you think?
[doublepost=1534441298][/doublepost]

Dang... you were right (not just tech like I assumed). Wow...

Quoting from the source you listed: "By last year, Google’s parent, Alphabet, was spending more money on lobbyists than any other corporation in America." Article from 2018.

That article is wrong. Sorry. But every cloud has a silver lining. The link from @spacemnspiff nytimes article to the Google Transparency Project is pretty interesting. It shows where Google is spending some of that money.