It think it is just a symptom of most of the R&D moving to flash storage technology to support mobile. There were advancements in magnetic, but no where near as impressive. Flash went through the same huge growth cycle by gaining storage capacity, reducing physical size, increasing performance, and reducing price.
And that’s certainly true. There’s a minimum physical size for a spinning disk’s magnetic sectors before the magnetism itself starts to interfere with neighboring sectors. There’s a minimum physical size for the heads within the disks and the space between them. And NAND (and all other forms of solid state) happen to have a far lower threshold for these physical limitations than all disks, leading to a higher density.
But REALLY. Ten years and this is the best we can do?
where is apple on this dammit? google is eating its lunch again... google had a 3 year lead with gmail vs a decent apple proposal (is there one today?) google had a 3 year lead with google docs vs iwork for icloud.. is it gonna be another 3 years until apple matches google on cloud storage?
its one thing to wait and iron out all the details and come out with a more finished product but a. 3 years is a freaking long time b. if a user get used to sth its very hard to switch (see gmail) c. its cloud storage for crying out loud and apple has gazillion trillion in the bank
Heh heh, I have 11.5 GB from taking advantage of every freebie promo and test volunteer reward that they offered me about a couple of years ago. That's free for life.
I got 48 free GB for two years with a Samsung Galaxy SIII, when I got an S4 with the same offer it was not added to or extended, which seems like a bit of a scam.
It runs out soon which is when I'll have to cut back I suppose.
where is apple on this dammit? google is eating its lunch again... google had a 3 year lead with gmail vs a decent apple proposal (is there one today?) google had a 3 year lead with google docs vs iwork for icloud.. is it gonna be another 3 years until apple matches google on cloud storage?
its one thing to wait and iron out all the details and come out with a more finished product but
a. 3 years is a freaking long time
b. if a user get used to sth its very hard to switch (see gmail)
c. its cloud storage for crying out loud and apple has gazillion trillion in the bank
make it happen dammit
It took Google 5 or more years to catch up to Apple's iTools, let alone Apple's eWorld.
Your statements are completely wrong, you've got things ass backwards.
LOL at the guy who thinks Apple needs to follow Google.
I work for a local authority. None of our servers have a TB of storage, the servers are on average about 350gb and we have about 5 servers. How much data do you need to keep on your tablet?
I don't. Who needs 41 megapixels in a camera (not knocking it btw, it's still an amazing camera), who needs a 64-bit smartphone, who needs to calculate pi to the 100,000,000,000,000th digit?
You do realize the same source has a "Criticisms of Apple" page.
I don't feel that the Criticisms of Apple page is quite the same scope as the Criticisms of Google page. If anything, it is not as pertinent to this discussion as the Google page. And if you ask me, at first glance, most of Apple's criticisms listed on that page are because Apple is held to a higher standard than their tech peers, especially with the environment and labor issues.
I, like many others here, avoid Google and their services as much as possible.
Go back to 1994. 1GB drives were huge. Basically the largest available, right?
Fast forward to 2004. 1TB drives had just come out. 1000x larger.
And now in 2014, we have… 4TB. Where are our Petabyte drives? What happened here? I mean, even 10TB seems like a meaningful thought, but nothing. Nada.
So Google being able to offer up this amount of storage seems insane. Think of the sheer number of drives! Think of the amount of physical space required! And I guess they assume the service will be used for at least a year per person, because terabyte drives are still $100.
Simple math assuming the average 100GB purchaser _uses_ 10GB (and median user is 2GB...pretty much what I see in my disk management Life).
And retail for 4TB internal drives is ~$150. Google's price is wholesale.... your price is off by a factor of 3+.
Figuring in 4TB RAID 5 and a Mirror... and likely a decent amount of compression to balance any anomalous usage spikes
Let's say you want to service a BILLION users.
That's 10GB per user RAIDED/Mirrored out at 24GB.
24GB*1B (is a lot of zeros)/4TB = 6Million Drives
my back of the envelope price for the raw spindles (6 million 4TB if you're counting) is $750Million..
Storage Array, networking, the army of technicians to wire up the cabinets, electrical, cooling... lets double that 1.5B
Seems like a lot of Initial spend.... oh wait Google made 9.0BILLION last quarter.... Take it out of petty cash.
A BILLION Users costs Google 1.50 cents in initial CapEx and OpEx/yr per user...
Google .49/1.99 = 25% Gross Margin... is it profitable to Googles current stds.... yes.
Year 2... plan on 10% disk failure (8 cents) and 10% growth (8 cents), 10% growth on costs (.83 cents per user)
Google makes $1.05 Billion at 50% gross profit the 2nd year....
Seems to make pretty simple business sense... if you have the capacity in the data center and your network.
Please, stop putting out FUD! Two totally different things. Dropbox IS NOT scanning your data but simply, and securely, building previews based on file extensions to give you easy access to previews of your own docs from your web browser without launching an app. Did you even read the article?
People make up lots of stuff about Apple. I don't believe everything I hear and I'm sure you don't either.
Oh wait, you were talking about Google. . .
Why bother, the guy lives a double standard life and his posts pretty much admit it. He chooses to ignore any wrongdoing by his chosen company and point the finger at anything that could make his company look bad. You probably shouldn't engage those type of people in debate when they try that tactic.
I think the proper response to Google lowering their prices should be "That's great - we as consumers win" because it will put pressure on other companies to drop their prices or come up with something different so they can differentiate themselves from Google. It's called healthy competition and it does wonders for the industry. Some people may say that Google is undercutting the competition to knock them out but let's be honest - if that happened, it would not be the first time it has ever happened and it would not be the last. Every major company (Apple included) has done this at some point in their storied careers.
Google wants to scan your data so they can take your ideas and make money off of them before you can. That is in addition to advertising.
I have read many funny comments on this board -- but this might be the funniest yet (as a matter of fact, with Dilger's inane diatribes and the ridiculous comments of deluded fanbois, this site is funnier than The Onion)!
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE enlighten us what ideas the likes of "Tallest Skil" might have, that Google (or anyone else) could use to make money off!
I think the proper response to Google lowering their prices should be "That's great - we as consumers win" because it will put pressure on other companies to drop their prices or come up with something different so they can differentiate themselves from Google. It's called healthy competition and it does wonders for the industry.
Actually not always. There is a difference between selling storage at a loss when it is not your main revenue generator versus, in the case of Dropbox, selling nothing but storage, of course they can't sell at a loss. It is the same argument made about Amazon undercutting the actual cost of ebooks. It is not real competition. It may look good for consumers until your only choice is either Google or MS. But Apple is no different in some respects, they give away their OS and apps to sell more hardware, just like Google gives stuff away for free to win your eyeballs on ad impressions.
Please, stop putting out FUD! Two totally different things. Dropbox IS NOT scanning your data but simply, and securely, building previews based on file extensions to give you easy access to previews of your own docs from your web browser without launching an app. Did you even read the article?
And how do they detect file extensions if they're not scanning for them?
Comments
It think it is just a symptom of most of the R&D moving to flash storage technology to support mobile. There were advancements in magnetic, but no where near as impressive. Flash went through the same huge growth cycle by gaining storage capacity, reducing physical size, increasing performance, and reducing price.
And that’s certainly true. There’s a minimum physical size for a spinning disk’s magnetic sectors before the magnetism itself starts to interfere with neighboring sectors. There’s a minimum physical size for the heads within the disks and the space between them. And NAND (and all other forms of solid state) happen to have a far lower threshold for these physical limitations than all disks, leading to a higher density.
But REALLY. Ten years and this is the best we can do?
its one thing to wait and iron out all the details and come out with a more finished product but
a. 3 years is a freaking long time
b. if a user get used to sth its very hard to switch (see gmail)
c. its cloud storage for crying out loud and apple has gazillion trillion in the bank
make it happen dammit
Heh heh, I have 11.5 GB from taking advantage of every freebie promo and test volunteer reward that they offered me about a couple of years ago. That's free for life.
I got 48 free GB for two years with a Samsung Galaxy SIII, when I got an S4 with the same offer it was not added to or extended, which seems like a bit of a scam.
It runs out soon which is when I'll have to cut back I suppose.
where is apple on this dammit? google is eating its lunch again... google had a 3 year lead with gmail vs a decent apple proposal (is there one today?) google had a 3 year lead with google docs vs iwork for icloud.. is it gonna be another 3 years until apple matches google on cloud storage?
its one thing to wait and iron out all the details and come out with a more finished product but
a. 3 years is a freaking long time
b. if a user get used to sth its very hard to switch (see gmail)
c. its cloud storage for crying out loud and apple has gazillion trillion in the bank
make it happen dammit
It took Google 5 or more years to catch up to Apple's iTools, let alone Apple's eWorld.
Your statements are completely wrong, you've got things ass backwards.
LOL at the guy who thinks Apple needs to follow Google.
please enlighten me
I work for a local authority. None of our servers have a TB of storage, the servers are on average about 350gb and we have about 5 servers. How much data do you need to keep on your tablet?
I don't. Who needs 41 megapixels in a camera (not knocking it btw, it's still an amazing camera), who needs a 64-bit smartphone, who needs to calculate pi to the 100,000,000,000,000th digit?
It's because numbers sell.
You do realize the same source has a "Criticisms of Apple" page.
I don't feel that the Criticisms of Apple page is quite the same scope as the Criticisms of Google page. If anything, it is not as pertinent to this discussion as the Google page. And if you ask me, at first glance, most of Apple's criticisms listed on that page are because Apple is held to a higher standard than their tech peers, especially with the environment and labor issues.
I, like many others here, avoid Google and their services as much as possible.
It took Google 5 or more years to catch up to Apple's iTools, let alone Apple's eWorld.
Your statements are completely wrong, you've got things ass backwards.
LOL at the guy who thinks Apple needs to follow Google.
if you havent noticed a lot of the areas that apple and google operate in overlap nowadays...
My point is exactly that apple need not follow google.. it should lead
I’ve been wondering something recently.
Go back to 1994. 1GB drives were huge. Basically the largest available, right?
Fast forward to 2004. 1TB drives had just come out. 1000x larger.
And now in 2014, we have… 4TB. Where are our Petabyte drives? What happened here? I mean, even 10TB seems like a meaningful thought, but nothing. Nada.
So Google being able to offer up this amount of storage seems insane. Think of the sheer number of drives! Think of the amount of physical space required! And I guess they assume the service will be used for at least a year per person, because terabyte drives are still $100.
Simple math assuming the average 100GB purchaser _uses_ 10GB (and median user is 2GB...pretty much what I see in my disk management Life).
And retail for 4TB internal drives is ~$150. Google's price is wholesale.... your price is off by a factor of 3+.
Figuring in 4TB RAID 5 and a Mirror... and likely a decent amount of compression to balance any anomalous usage spikes
Let's say you want to service a BILLION users.
That's 10GB per user RAIDED/Mirrored out at 24GB.
24GB*1B (is a lot of zeros)/4TB = 6Million Drives
my back of the envelope price for the raw spindles (6 million 4TB if you're counting) is $750Million..
Storage Array, networking, the army of technicians to wire up the cabinets, electrical, cooling... lets double that 1.5B
Seems like a lot of Initial spend.... oh wait Google made 9.0BILLION last quarter.... Take it out of petty cash.
A BILLION Users costs Google 1.50 cents in initial CapEx and OpEx/yr per user...
Google .49/1.99 = 25% Gross Margin... is it profitable to Googles current stds.... yes.
Year 2... plan on 10% disk failure (8 cents) and 10% growth (8 cents), 10% growth on costs (.83 cents per user)
Google makes $1.05 Billion at 50% gross profit the 2nd year....
Seems to make pretty simple business sense... if you have the capacity in the data center and your network.
Please, stop putting out FUD! Two totally different things. Dropbox IS NOT scanning your data but simply, and securely, building previews based on file extensions to give you easy access to previews of your own docs from your web browser without launching an app. Did you even read the article?
Any evidence of this ever happening? Where does this stuff come from?
They read it from other "over zealous" AppleInsider users and since they don't bother fact checking, it becomes gospel.
People make up lots of stuff about Apple. I don't believe everything I hear and I'm sure you don't either.
Oh wait, you were talking about Google. . .
Why bother, the guy lives a double standard life and his posts pretty much admit it. He chooses to ignore any wrongdoing by his chosen company and point the finger at anything that could make his company look bad. You probably shouldn't engage those type of people in debate when they try that tactic.
I think the proper response to Google lowering their prices should be "That's great - we as consumers win" because it will put pressure on other companies to drop their prices or come up with something different so they can differentiate themselves from Google. It's called healthy competition and it does wonders for the industry. Some people may say that Google is undercutting the competition to knock them out but let's be honest - if that happened, it would not be the first time it has ever happened and it would not be the last. Every major company (Apple included) has done this at some point in their storied careers.
Google wants to scan your data so they can take your ideas and make money off of them before you can. That is in addition to advertising.
I have read many funny comments on this board -- but this might be the funniest yet (as a matter of fact, with Dilger's inane diatribes and the ridiculous comments of deluded fanbois, this site is funnier than The Onion)!
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE enlighten us what ideas the likes of "Tallest Skil" might have, that Google (or anyone else) could use to make money off!
I think the proper response to Google lowering their prices should be "That's great - we as consumers win" because it will put pressure on other companies to drop their prices or come up with something different so they can differentiate themselves from Google. It's called healthy competition and it does wonders for the industry.
Actually not always. There is a difference between selling storage at a loss when it is not your main revenue generator versus, in the case of Dropbox, selling nothing but storage, of course they can't sell at a loss. It is the same argument made about Amazon undercutting the actual cost of ebooks. It is not real competition. It may look good for consumers until your only choice is either Google or MS. But Apple is no different in some respects, they give away their OS and apps to sell more hardware, just like Google gives stuff away for free to win your eyeballs on ad impressions.
Serves the VC's right for chasing the latest shiney object without thinking two moves ahead
Dropbox's valuation and potential IPO price just collapsed...
Serves the VC's right for chasing the latest shiney object without thinking two moves ahead
I suppose they still have the deal with Samsung to give 48GB for two years and the deal with HTC to give 23GB for two years.
I don't know if Dropbox get paid for it or if they are hoping people will pay to keep their data at the end of the two years.
And how do they detect file extensions if they're not scanning for them?
https://hubic.com/en/offers/
€1 ($1.40) a month for 100 GB
€10 a month for 10 TB compared to Google's $100 (€72) for the same capacity.
And retail for 4TB internal drives is ~$150.
When did THAT happen?
Looks like that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Yeah, they’re looking at the documents.