With the EOL of iDisk, I think Apple really wants to kill the hierarchical file structure as they 'promote' to have your documents 'within' the app. Just look where iWork for iCloud is taking us. Then again, they've improved on the Finder in 10.9, making my point moot as well.
Yeah it's taking us in a direction where you can't organize your files anymore and you have to keep files locked inside an apps sandbox. They are taking us to a place where no one wants to be.
If you think (sub) folders are complex, just have a couple without sub folders or use 'documents' as a preset folder. What's the deal?
Hierarchical file structure as a metaphor is constantly being called 'old fashioned' but in fact it's simply the best way of organizating your files.
On the other hand, searching files greatly benefit from tags, meta-data, search filters etc.
Apple made the mistake of not separating these two things. They are solving a problem which is not a problem. No one is complaining and Apple's way of doing things is not innovative.
Apple's other big mistake is keeping iCloud Apple only.
I hope iCloud will fail or get fixed; the product is inferior to Dropbox and is in the way of people's productivity.
I think it's really annoying that people think other people's work should be free. I have no problems at all to pay for a great service such as dropbox.
Yet, his criticism, one reason he doesn't want to pay for it, is entirely valid:
Quote:
... It's really annoying that a shared folder takes up the full amount of storage on all connected accounts. So if a friend drops a hugs file into a shared folder I have to put up with nags from dropbox about limited storage space. ...
So, essentially, Dropbox is dinging everyone's storage quota even though there's only one copy of that file that is being shared. It's double dipping on a grand scale. Yes, it has to sync that data to all the systems it's being shared to, but they don't charge you by bandwidth usage, they charge by disk space on the server, and that 5GB file is only taking up 5GB of disk on the server, not 25GB because it's shared with 4 other people.
Frankly, the whole thing is more than a bit scammy.
And, Dropbox is not all that anyway. It doesn't "just work" all the time when you have shared files, and I don't think that's going to improve with this new effort. If anything it will get worse because developers will be sloppy with their syncing.
On the other hand, I think Apple is making a mistake making the storage flat. Even with labels, it's counter to the way people think and work. People like to organize by compartmentalizing, and labeling is not as natural way of doing that as putting things in separate containers. Sure, the hierarchical file system has it's drawbacks, but it scales better than labeling. Likewise, having apps own data is a step backwards.
So, essentially, Dropbox is dinging everyone's storage quota even though there's only one copy of that file that is being shared. It's double dipping on a grand scale. Yes, it has to sync that data to all the systems it's being shared to, but they don't charge you by bandwidth usage, they charge by disk space on the server, and that 5GB file is only taking up 5GB of disk on the server, not 25GB because it's shared with 4 other people.
OK, I agree with you on that criticism. But just because you have a point doesn't mean it should be free.
Double dipping is probably the best description I've heard for this so far. Data supplied by a shared folder should not be eaten off your quota.
My opinion is only reinforced that when a customer buys any Apple "iDevice", they should receive an online storage account (with iCloud) equivalent to the storage of the device. If the person sells the device, they should have the option to pay to keep the online storage or upgrade to a new device to maintain the free storage status. If they choose neither upgrade/maintenance path, the iCloud account is closed after 30 days to give them time to back up their data. And if the customer has multiple devices (iPhone, iPad mini, or whatever) then the total online storage should be large enough to completely backup the contents if each device.
This remains my preferred stance for Apple, as it would retain and increase customer loyalty and encourage the purchase of costlier higher capacity mobile products.
OK, I agree with you on that criticism. But just because you have a point doesn't mean it should be free.
Double dipping is probably the best description I've heard for this so far. Data supplied by a shared folder should not be eaten off your quota.
Considering most use their storage for free, this is the trade off. I've been very happy with their ease of use thus far.
Apple's other big mistake is keeping iCloud Apple only.
I hope iCloud will fail or get fixed; the product is inferior to Dropbox and is in the way of people's productivity.
There is of course the Windows control panel which lets Windows users sync their photos, so it's not totally Apple-only. And they can login from a Windows box, using IE or, cough, Chrome.
Comments
Yeah it's taking us in a direction where you can't organize your files anymore and you have to keep files locked inside an apps sandbox. They are taking us to a place where no one wants to be.
If you think (sub) folders are complex, just have a couple without sub folders or use 'documents' as a preset folder. What's the deal?
Hierarchical file structure as a metaphor is constantly being called 'old fashioned' but in fact it's simply the best way of organizating your files.
On the other hand, searching files greatly benefit from tags, meta-data, search filters etc.
Apple made the mistake of not separating these two things. They are solving a problem which is not a problem. No one is complaining and Apple's way of doing things is not innovative.
Apple's other big mistake is keeping iCloud Apple only.
I hope iCloud will fail or get fixed; the product is inferior to Dropbox and is in the way of people's productivity.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel
I think it's really annoying that people think other people's work should be free. I have no problems at all to pay for a great service such as dropbox.
Yet, his criticism, one reason he doesn't want to pay for it, is entirely valid:
Quote:
... It's really annoying that a shared folder takes up the full amount of storage on all connected accounts. So if a friend drops a hugs file into a shared folder I have to put up with nags from dropbox about limited storage space. ...
So, essentially, Dropbox is dinging everyone's storage quota even though there's only one copy of that file that is being shared. It's double dipping on a grand scale. Yes, it has to sync that data to all the systems it's being shared to, but they don't charge you by bandwidth usage, they charge by disk space on the server, and that 5GB file is only taking up 5GB of disk on the server, not 25GB because it's shared with 4 other people.
Frankly, the whole thing is more than a bit scammy.
And, Dropbox is not all that anyway. It doesn't "just work" all the time when you have shared files, and I don't think that's going to improve with this new effort. If anything it will get worse because developers will be sloppy with their syncing.
On the other hand, I think Apple is making a mistake making the storage flat. Even with labels, it's counter to the way people think and work. People like to organize by compartmentalizing, and labeling is not as natural way of doing that as putting things in separate containers. Sure, the hierarchical file system has it's drawbacks, but it scales better than labeling. Likewise, having apps own data is a step backwards.
OK, I agree with you on that criticism. But just because you have a point doesn't mean it should be free.
Double dipping is probably the best description I've heard for this so far. Data supplied by a shared folder should not be eaten off your quota.
This remains my preferred stance for Apple, as it would retain and increase customer loyalty and encourage the purchase of costlier higher capacity mobile products.
Considering most use their storage for free, this is the trade off. I've been very happy with their ease of use thus far.
There is of course the Windows control panel which lets Windows users sync their photos, so it's not totally Apple-only. And they can login from a Windows box, using IE or, cough, Chrome.
Also, I don't think iCloud is inferior.