"We may terminate the Agreement or restrict, suspend or terminate your use of the Service at our discretion without notice at any time, including if we determine that your use violates the Agreement, is improper, substantially exceeds or differs from normal use by other users, or otherwise involves fraud or misuse of the Service or harms our interests or those of another user of the Service."
> We are constantly changing and improving our Services. We may add or remove functionalities or features, and we may suspend or stop a Service altogether... Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time.
Amazon may actually be fair and enforce this legitimately, but I was once burned badly by the promise of "Unlimited Storage." Bluehost offered this, always with an asterisk*, and I assumed it was legitimate. So I tried to upload 20 gigs of home videos and family photos to share with my relatives.
Next thing I know, all of my sites are 404ing, and when I call Bluehost, the tech tells me they shut down my hosting service because I was "abusing their unlimited storage." Then they pointed me to the asterisk that says unlimited storage isn't really unlimited and is whatever they feel like it should be on a case-by-case basis. Then I had to sit there on the phone with them and delete all my recently uploaded files before they would put my websites back online.
I think the best practice is to use the following backup scheme:
- 1st line: your computer's HD.
- 2nd line: your SOHO NAS (very cheap these days, I have a 2 + 2 (mirror) TB NAS)
- 3rd line: remote backup
The sensitive info should be encrypted at your computer, possibly with an encryption software that is easy to use everywhere (e.g. GPG).
I can't think of any real-life scenario where these 3 copies get destroyed simultaneously.
Now the real problem here is upstream. In 3rd world countries like mine (Greece), we have an avg upstream of less than 100 kb/s. So if my pictures/video/pc/whatever backup is > 50 GB, uploading it anywhere is a pain.
All the major cloud providers include clauses like this. Service is at their discretion. There is no uptime agreement. No guarantee your files will be there an hour from now.
NEVER keep important things only on a cloud service with no backups and no guarantee of service.
I don't think they're going to enforce a "you went way over the storage other people tend to use" cap, the way ISPs tend to. S3 stores petabytes of stuff; they can eat your 50GB-per-day wastefulness without breaking a sweat.
I think it's more to cover the case where you figure out a way to build a business that stores data in this, instead of in S3. Especially the case where that business is, itself, a primarily data storage or backup business, so you're directly living off the margin between "capital-cost storage for you" and "linear-revenue storage sold to customers." Amazon does not want to kill S3's business model, just yet.
Do you seriously expect a company to commit to not only guarantee that their service will be supported forever but on top of that, that they guarantee they won't shut you down regardless of what you store on their servers?
I don't see how Dropbox wins this. Dropbox isn't going to be able to beat Amazon on price reselling Amazon's own cloud. Dropbox doesn't have any complements, like Google does with Google Docs and Gmail and Android or Microsoft has with Windows and Office or Amazon has with their MP3 marketplace and their Fire devices. It's the whole Jobs thing with 'you're a feature, not a product.'
At least for now, Dropbox wins with better software and features. Google drive has crapped out on me several times in the last years, forcing me to re-download everything from the server to my local box. I've also had cases where it couldn't resolve a sync issue and split a file into two versions. Neither of these has happened with dropbox.
Given Google's obvious prowess with servers, I'm actually amazed Google drive isn't better than it is.
I don't think Dropbox has ever tried to compete on price though, have they?
For me, there are two things that make Dropbox a better option than MS/Amazon/Google:
1) It's their core business. You know it's not going to be dropped next week because the side project wasn't popular enough or it's not making enough money.
2) The on iPhone/Mac apps that I use quite often offer a sync option with Dropbox not many sync with other providers.
The fact that people think Dropbox is so vulnerable tells me how secure they really are as a leader in this space. Let me explain. Dropbox works so beautifully and transparently that people mistakenly assume that what they are doing must be easy. (Netflix suffers / benefits from a similar fallacy with respect to streaming.) In reality, distributed storage and sync is quite a challenging engineering problem, which Dropbox has about a 10 year jump on solving. There is a notorious surfeit of brilliant engineers at Google, but have you actually used Google Drive? I tried it when it came out and it crashed at least once a day. Maybe it's gotten better since, but so has Dropbox. Overcoming these technical deficits is really hard and expensive (just look at Apple Maps) and often painful for the end user. I wouldn't write Dropbox off just yet. Also, with the forthcoming IPO it's conceivable that they will start to build out their own data centers.
Dropbox user experience hasn't changed that much over the years.
Amazon, Google and MS are after users to absorb them into their other products and then merge or drop those products years letter.
My Dropbox account still works the same after all those years, I can't say the same of Google Drive/Doc SkyDrive/OneDrive/LiveMesh/etc.
> It's the whole Jobs thing with 'you're a feature, not a product.'
I'd turned that the other way. Dropbox is a product while Google, MS and Amazon's dropbox-like offers are a side-feature of other business.
edit: Then there is the `brand` argument. Dropbox is solid.
Note: I am not convinced those arguments are valid in the business space but this is how I think it pans out for most `standard` users (free and paying).
The problem is not Dropbox being "a feature, not a product". It's a perfectly fine product, but it's hard to compete with products given away as loss leaders by companies who have other sources of revenue.
First, have you tried the Cloud Drive UI? It's barely hackathon-level quality. They have basic photo browsing, which is nice, but the Dropbox UX is orders of magnitude better at the time of writing.
Second, a lot of people use Dropbox to share files. Amazon's service is currently about back-ups. They're somewhat different use cases, and sharing is arguably a harder problem than backup because the sharing experience must have much less friction to succeed. So Dropbox is already years ahead of Amazon in this regard.
Third, storage at scale is still much cheaper than what anybody is charging. A 4U of RAID 5 SATA drives costs quite a bit less than Amazon's $59/yr/TB price point. (I know Cloud Drive is "unlimited" at that price, but survey data suggest to me most users have less than 1TB of data or unwilling to upload that much). While Dropbox purportedly uses S3 heavily, S3 is about $360/yr/TB. Clearly Dropbox must have storage hedged with something else to back their Pro service (even if that tech is still under development).
Dropbox can, with high probability, meet Amazon's offering here, and they'll likely blow Amazon's UX out of the park.
It'll be tough for Dropbox. I imagine the #1 thing they have going for them is a strong consumer-facing brand and a bunch of existing customers (who are likely still telling their friends to download Dropbox, though who knows how fast). I also suspect they're working on a full office suite - they acquired Mailbox and Hackpad more recently.
Amazon doesn't have much strength as a consumer-facing tech brand, afaict. As a developer, I trust S3. But as a consumer, do I trust Amazon's software to be usable or reliable? I'm not so sure.
Still, long-term, I find it hard to see things panning out for good ol DBX without something big coming out soon...
Dropbox should convert their storage backend to a single account on Amazon's new "unlimited" service so that their per-user hosting costs are approximately nil... ;-)
They already have network effects. I wouldn't underestimate those. Also startups are rarely zero sum, so for Dropbox to be successful™ it doesn't have to absolutely murder the competition, just be significant enough that the competition doesn't murder it.
Dropbox has great integration on mobile apps. I don't recall more than a few of my apps having integration beyond Dropbox and iCloud.
I don't know about Android, but I really hope iOS moves towards a generic cloud storage interface so that competitors can more easily get traction, but I know this isn't in Apple's interest.
I don't understand how Google and Microsoft let Dropbox (and Box) to gain any market share at all. It's poor execution from both these giants, particularly Google. I am surprised Dropbox was able to grow for this long.
Dropbox is pre-installed on a lot of samsung smartphones and can not be removed. This removes the hurdle for people who don't know much about cloud storage from picking one.
Although I consider this bloatware it appears to be a very good marketing strategy.
Dropbox, which has its whole business around selling storage, unlike companies like Amazon and Google, who also want to mine your data, could offer end-to-end encryption for the files like Spideroak.
Of course, I can't imagine its most influential board member, Condoleezza Rice, will ever agree to that.
This strikes me as being somewhat similar to the historic relationship between auto makers and dealers. Before dealer protection laws (that we now hate so much), an auto maker could really just put any dealer out of business once the dealer had shown that there was a viable market in that area.
It's a few years later and now we have several businesses who's business model is essentially reselling amazon services (s3), and once they've shown it's a viable business (dropbox) we can expect amazon to come in and undercut them.
There are two factors that might prevent amazon from being too successful in the consumer storage area.
1. Dropbox's UI, apps, and filesystem integration are both very well designed and pretty technically complex. It might seem trivial to design something as good, but I promise you it's not.
2. Consumer storage pricing is in a race to the bottom, but consumer storage volume is increasing exponentially. Once people start uploading all their home videos to this service, will amazon be able to afford to run this business unit?
"Note: The Cloud Drive Sync application (formerly, the "Cloud Drive desktop application") is no longer available for download. If you already have the application installed on your computer, you can continue to use it. However, if you uninstall the application, you won't be able to reinstall it from the website."
It seems many people here commenting haven't tried it. It has no sync! The online interface is awful!
This is currently such a bad product that its not likely to be a threat to any existing solution.
Try signing up and seeing it for yourself. You will neither be able to sync or upload a lot of content, nor use it once uploaded given the poor online interface.
I currently pay about $120 per year for 1 TB of storage through Google Drive. I use about 850 GB of that. After using all the various popular cloud drive services, I can say this isn't about $ per GB anymore. $120 per year for 1 TB is such a low amount of money that it becomes meaningless.
The next hurdle they need to overcome is sync speed. When you're dealing with that much data (especially when made up of many tiny files like JPGs) it becomes a significant engineering challenge. The sync speed with some services can slow to a crawl. In my own use, Google Drive and DropBox have been the best. OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive) was unusable at certain file counts. I haven't tried Amazon though. I would give it a shot if I go over the 1 TB mark but would probably not try it just to try to save $60 per year.
There is something very unclear to me regarding the usage of the cloud drive for kindle related stuff. I mean, until now every ebook I purchased on amazon was available on amazon cloud. Also, they offered this option to documents you sent to your device by email. How is this new cloud drive going to affect me ? They already told me in the email that the current 5 GB plan is no longer available and has been replaced with a free 3-month trial of one of the Unlimited plans. The existing documents are available to download and view but if I want to upload new files I must select one of the Unlimited plans. So no more cloud storage for kindle (of course, unless I choose to pay according to new plans) ?
These "Unlimited" offers now bore me. I'd much rather they capture what the actual offer is - is it 100 GB with 50 GB/month Upload, 50 GB/month Download? 500 GB with 100 GB/month upload, 1 TB/month download?
Just be honest with me and tell me what you are offering, don't play games with "Unlimited"
"Most people have a lifetime of birthdays, vacations, holidays, and everyday moments stored across numerous devices. And, they don’t know how many gigabytes of storage they need to back all of them up."
Моst people in the US and Canada have highly asymmetrical Internet connections, so uploading gigabytes of accumulated media is hardly an enticing proposition. I wonder if that's an important factor of why the cloud providers are so willing to offer "unlimited" storage. If it was Eastern Europe, on the other hand, they'd probably be swamped with data in days, if not hours.
I do not think Amazon is going after Dropbox, Google and Microsoft with this, as the article title implies. Thus far, Amazon is offering a different service: Dropbox, Google Drive and OneDrive all synchronize your files (selective or all) Amazon's Cloud Drive does not.
I am glad to see more competition in this space! I frequently advise non-tech family and friends to choose two cloud providers, and use them to replicate important files.
I stopped being a paid Dropbox customer last year over the Condi Rice issue (otherwise, a great service) but I still use their free tier. I also pay for extra Google Drive storage, which I think is a good deal. The best deal, for my use cases however, is Office 365 home edition: my wife and I each get one terrabyte of cloud storage and up to date versions of all of the Office 365 productivity software (and the web versions are nice running Linux) -- all for $100/year.
I am tempted to sign up for the new Amazon offering, but I already feel I am so well replicated: every photo I take goes automatically to Google+, OndeDrive, and Dropbox; almost all of my working files are inside of OneDrive so get synced; I created compressed archive files for projects and with date stamps save them away in Google Drive; projects stored at bitbucket and github.
It will be interesting to see how well Amazon supports mobile devices and multiple operating systems.
For me one of the biggest wins of cloud storage is being able to choose what is not replicated to my laptops, etc.
I would feel better about Amazon's offering if they were more transparent regarding government requests. According to the EFF[0] Amazon doesn't tells users about government
data requests or publish transparency reports.
Well the takeaway from me as a Prime customer is now I can back up almost all my photos to the cloud (hi NSA!) ... in fact if there was a convenient app on my iPhone to automatically sync it, I'd sign up. Maybe in the future, Amazon will offer some cool services for tagging and searching my photos. Makes everyone suddenly want to become a high-res DSLR fanatic.
What I see is that Amazon is simply trying to maximize the power of Bundling. It's all about that Prime, 'bout that Prime, no limit. (Except the unofficial one which only a few people will run into, but the gamble is that the positive PR will attract more customers than the negative PR. Of course, they're also attracting a lawsuit from other companies.
When you are spending almost $7B a year on shipping, and your customers are only paying $3B for said shipping, it's time to start padding the Prime features so you can take advantage of the good will when you make necessary adjustments later.
OVH tried to do that with their Hubic service, and people were just abusing the limits, sending in data from multiple machines 24/7 (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev... ) . They now limit at 10TB for the old "unlimited" price.
"Unlimited" should be banned from advertising slogans. It's like an "all you can eat" buffet that kicks out the customers that eat too much. It's a trick that companies employ because nobody reads their TOCs that let them kick out power users. It's misleading advertising. Why not promise people 100TB of storage? Because then you'd actually have to live up to your promises. Since living up to promises of "unlimited" data isn't feasible, this strategy should be banned. Same goes for Yahoo! Mail and their "unlimited" storage.
I can't see how Dropbox wouldn't end up getting crushed in this fight. Just recently, they reclaimed all the promo/referral/college storage I had, and shrunk my space from 40GB to 15GB. Pay up $10 per month or lose all your data.
I shopped around, and got a $2 per month from Google Drive. The product is pretty much on parity with Dropbox on the Mac, and works exactly the same way. Yes, I'll take that 80% discount, thank you.
All cloud storage services offer unlimited storage in one form or another. It will be interesting to see who comes up with the most seamless solution for managing limited on device memory storage with unlimited storage on the cloud. Users may also want different files to be synced on different devices. I have only used Dropbox among all of these services, and its current manual Selective Sync is a clumsy way to manage data.
[+] [-] ivank|11 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=...
[+] [-] jrochkind1|11 years ago|reply
"We also reserve the right to suspend or end the Services at any time at our discretion and without notice. "
https://www.dropbox.com/terms
And Google's:
> We are constantly changing and improving our Services. We may add or remove functionalities or features, and we may suspend or stop a Service altogether... Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time.
http://www.google.com/policies/terms/ (that's where a link to Terms of Service from Google Drive page at takes https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2450387?hl=en you, those general Google ToS)
For better or for worse, nearly every ToS you will see anywhere includes a provision like this.
[+] [-] j_s|11 years ago|reply
https://www.dropbox.com/terms
[+] [-] ideonexus|11 years ago|reply
Next thing I know, all of my sites are 404ing, and when I call Bluehost, the tech tells me they shut down my hosting service because I was "abusing their unlimited storage." Then they pointed me to the asterisk that says unlimited storage isn't really unlimited and is whatever they feel like it should be on a case-by-case basis. Then I had to sit there on the phone with them and delete all my recently uploaded files before they would put my websites back online.
caveat emptor
[+] [-] newobj|11 years ago|reply
-- Your hard drive
"Me too."
-- Your backup hard drive
"I also reserve the right to be stolen, dropped, burned up in a fire, or thrown out by your partner during a cleaning jag."
-- Your hard drives in general
[+] [-] skizm|11 years ago|reply
Why even bother putting "Unlimited" if they are just going to kick off the power users?
[+] [-] untog|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atmosx|11 years ago|reply
I can't think of any real-life scenario where these 3 copies get destroyed simultaneously.
Now the real problem here is upstream. In 3rd world countries like mine (Greece), we have an avg upstream of less than 100 kb/s. So if my pictures/video/pc/whatever backup is > 50 GB, uploading it anywhere is a pain.
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|11 years ago|reply
NEVER keep important things only on a cloud service with no backups and no guarantee of service.
[+] [-] derefr|11 years ago|reply
I think it's more to cover the case where you figure out a way to build a business that stores data in this, instead of in S3. Especially the case where that business is, itself, a primarily data storage or backup business, so you're directly living off the margin between "capital-cost storage for you" and "linear-revenue storage sold to customers." Amazon does not want to kill S3's business model, just yet.
[+] [-] chrramirez|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zak_mc_kracken|11 years ago|reply
Do you seriously expect a company to commit to not only guarantee that their service will be supported forever but on top of that, that they guarantee they won't shut you down regardless of what you store on their servers?
[+] [-] middleclick|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agildehaus|11 years ago|reply
Never rely 100% on anything.
[+] [-] cwyers|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wanderingstan|11 years ago|reply
Given Google's obvious prowess with servers, I'm actually amazed Google drive isn't better than it is.
[+] [-] kule|11 years ago|reply
For me, there are two things that make Dropbox a better option than MS/Amazon/Google:
1) It's their core business. You know it's not going to be dropped next week because the side project wasn't popular enough or it's not making enough money.
2) The on iPhone/Mac apps that I use quite often offer a sync option with Dropbox not many sync with other providers.
[+] [-] hyperbovine|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnchristopher|11 years ago|reply
Amazon, Google and MS are after users to absorb them into their other products and then merge or drop those products years letter.
My Dropbox account still works the same after all those years, I can't say the same of Google Drive/Doc SkyDrive/OneDrive/LiveMesh/etc.
> It's the whole Jobs thing with 'you're a feature, not a product.'
I'd turned that the other way. Dropbox is a product while Google, MS and Amazon's dropbox-like offers are a side-feature of other business.
edit: Then there is the `brand` argument. Dropbox is solid.
Note: I am not convinced those arguments are valid in the business space but this is how I think it pans out for most `standard` users (free and paying).
[+] [-] eloisant|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] choppaface|11 years ago|reply
First, have you tried the Cloud Drive UI? It's barely hackathon-level quality. They have basic photo browsing, which is nice, but the Dropbox UX is orders of magnitude better at the time of writing.
Second, a lot of people use Dropbox to share files. Amazon's service is currently about back-ups. They're somewhat different use cases, and sharing is arguably a harder problem than backup because the sharing experience must have much less friction to succeed. So Dropbox is already years ahead of Amazon in this regard.
Third, storage at scale is still much cheaper than what anybody is charging. A 4U of RAID 5 SATA drives costs quite a bit less than Amazon's $59/yr/TB price point. (I know Cloud Drive is "unlimited" at that price, but survey data suggest to me most users have less than 1TB of data or unwilling to upload that much). While Dropbox purportedly uses S3 heavily, S3 is about $360/yr/TB. Clearly Dropbox must have storage hedged with something else to back their Pro service (even if that tech is still under development).
Dropbox can, with high probability, meet Amazon's offering here, and they'll likely blow Amazon's UX out of the park.
[+] [-] rattray|11 years ago|reply
Amazon doesn't have much strength as a consumer-facing tech brand, afaict. As a developer, I trust S3. But as a consumer, do I trust Amazon's software to be usable or reliable? I'm not so sure.
Still, long-term, I find it hard to see things panning out for good ol DBX without something big coming out soon...
[+] [-] crypt1d|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beambot|11 years ago|reply
Relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1499/
[+] [-] phamilton|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randall|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkmcf|11 years ago|reply
I don't know about Android, but I really hope iOS moves towards a generic cloud storage interface so that competitors can more easily get traction, but I know this isn't in Apple's interest.
[+] [-] yalogin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] semerda|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] artursapek|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sschueller|11 years ago|reply
Dropbox is pre-installed on a lot of samsung smartphones and can not be removed. This removes the hurdle for people who don't know much about cloud storage from picking one.
Although I consider this bloatware it appears to be a very good marketing strategy.
[+] [-] higherpurpose|11 years ago|reply
Of course, I can't imagine its most influential board member, Condoleezza Rice, will ever agree to that.
[+] [-] shanemhansen|11 years ago|reply
It's a few years later and now we have several businesses who's business model is essentially reselling amazon services (s3), and once they've shown it's a viable business (dropbox) we can expect amazon to come in and undercut them.
There are two factors that might prevent amazon from being too successful in the consumer storage area.
1. Dropbox's UI, apps, and filesystem integration are both very well designed and pretty technically complex. It might seem trivial to design something as good, but I promise you it's not.
2. Consumer storage pricing is in a race to the bottom, but consumer storage volume is increasing exponentially. Once people start uploading all their home videos to this service, will amazon be able to afford to run this business unit?
[+] [-] magic5227|11 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...
"Note: The Cloud Drive Sync application (formerly, the "Cloud Drive desktop application") is no longer available for download. If you already have the application installed on your computer, you can continue to use it. However, if you uninstall the application, you won't be able to reinstall it from the website."
[+] [-] magic5227|11 years ago|reply
This is currently such a bad product that its not likely to be a threat to any existing solution.
Try signing up and seeing it for yourself. You will neither be able to sync or upload a lot of content, nor use it once uploaded given the poor online interface.
[+] [-] 300bps|11 years ago|reply
The next hurdle they need to overcome is sync speed. When you're dealing with that much data (especially when made up of many tiny files like JPGs) it becomes a significant engineering challenge. The sync speed with some services can slow to a crawl. In my own use, Google Drive and DropBox have been the best. OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive) was unusable at certain file counts. I haven't tried Amazon though. I would give it a shot if I go over the 1 TB mark but would probably not try it just to try to save $60 per year.
[+] [-] misterjinx|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
Just be honest with me and tell me what you are offering, don't play games with "Unlimited"
[+] [-] geoka9|11 years ago|reply
Моst people in the US and Canada have highly asymmetrical Internet connections, so uploading gigabytes of accumulated media is hardly an enticing proposition. I wonder if that's an important factor of why the cloud providers are so willing to offer "unlimited" storage. If it was Eastern Europe, on the other hand, they'd probably be swamped with data in days, if not hours.
[+] [-] Fastidious|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradfa|11 years ago|reply
Dropbox is a folder. Everyone in my family understands "put things in this folder, they sync automatically." I want that but at this price!
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|11 years ago|reply
I stopped being a paid Dropbox customer last year over the Condi Rice issue (otherwise, a great service) but I still use their free tier. I also pay for extra Google Drive storage, which I think is a good deal. The best deal, for my use cases however, is Office 365 home edition: my wife and I each get one terrabyte of cloud storage and up to date versions of all of the Office 365 productivity software (and the web versions are nice running Linux) -- all for $100/year.
I am tempted to sign up for the new Amazon offering, but I already feel I am so well replicated: every photo I take goes automatically to Google+, OndeDrive, and Dropbox; almost all of my working files are inside of OneDrive so get synced; I created compressed archive files for projects and with date stamps save them away in Google Drive; projects stored at bitbucket and github.
It will be interesting to see how well Amazon supports mobile devices and multiple operating systems.
For me one of the biggest wins of cloud storage is being able to choose what is not replicated to my laptops, etc.
[+] [-] Splendor|11 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2014
[+] [-] SXX|11 years ago|reply
> The file 1.zip did not upload because it is larger than 2 GB.
[+] [-] zkhalique|11 years ago|reply
What I see is that Amazon is simply trying to maximize the power of Bundling. It's all about that Prime, 'bout that Prime, no limit. (Except the unofficial one which only a few people will run into, but the gamble is that the positive PR will attract more customers than the negative PR. Of course, they're also attracting a lawsuit from other companies.
I don't know what they're smoking.
[+] [-] themodelplumber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aissen|11 years ago|reply
This might explain this clause: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269908
[+] [-] akrymski|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badusername|11 years ago|reply
I shopped around, and got a $2 per month from Google Drive. The product is pretty much on parity with Dropbox on the Mac, and works exactly the same way. Yes, I'll take that 80% discount, thank you.
[+] [-] movingahead|11 years ago|reply