LIKE many dull-sounding things, file synchronisation, or syncing, is a big business. It has spawned a plethora of upstarts, including Box, Dropbox and SugarSync. But tech-industry behemoths have also piled in. Last year Apple launched iCloud, a revamped version of a previous offering. On April 22nd Microsoft spruced up its SkyDrive. The next day Google rolled out its much-anticipated Google Drive.
Apple, Google and Microsoft were slow to embrace sync. This is especially embarrassing for Google and Microsoft, which have tenderly courted corporate customers. In five years Dropbox has attracted over 50m registered users and raised more than $250m in private capital, nearly all of it in the autumn of last year. At the time it was estimated to be worth $4 billion. Box, which targets businesses, raised $80m around the same time. Its value is put at $600m.
So what are the investors paying for? Sync works by letting users mark folders in a desktop operating system, like Windows or Mac OS X, for syncing. Any files those folders enclose are then silently copied to a central server for backup, web-based viewing and retrieval. Each update to a file may be stored as a separate version, to reverse unwanted changes. So far, so unexciting. Where sync really comes into its own is by disseminating copies of the synced file to every computer registered to the same sync account, whether on the same network or anywhere on the internet.
Better yet, most sync services (with the notable exception of Apple) allow sharing folders with others. Those who share a synced folder can each add, delete and change items in it. Any changes are copied to each user's computer and require no additional downloads. (Cleverly, the services compare an altered file with the version stored on a central server, and only distribute the alterations, not the entire file; some also recognise local repositories on the same network and copy files peer-to-peer without a round-trip to the internet, further reducing broadband consumption.)
For businesses, this is a boon: small and large working groups in a company have real-time access to the same data directly on the desktop, or laptop for that matter. That is distinctly different from the days when a constant connection had to be maintained to the central server where files were stored. Individuals use it to ensure they can tap files stashed away on a home desktop while on the move. (Freelancers, including your correspondent, like it too; many publications, though not The Economist, rely on sync services to propagate revisions of drafts.)
Services offer a limited amount of storage for free, typically between 2GB (for Dropbox) and 7GB (for Microsoft). The revenue comes from additional storage, as much as hundreds of gigabytes or more, which is available for modest monthly or yearly fees.
Google Drive has been rumoured to be in the works as far back as 2006, following the launch of Gmail. The service is still being rolled out but those customers who have it got the real deal, not a trial "beta" version in which most Google products tend to appear. Google Drive and Google Docs overlap in their web interface, appearing as one service. You can sync all of your web-based Google Docs (spreadsheets and documents) to the desktop, but Google's formats must still be edited in a web browser with a live internet connection. Microsoft refreshed its well-regarded SkyDrive, was had been rather finicky compared with other offerings, and is now right in line with them.
Unlike the other two tech giants, Apple's iCloud lacks desktop synchronisation, though it allows Apple's applications and those of other developers to provide streaming and copies of items stored in it. Apple's iTunes Match service, for instance, copies all the user's music libraries to iCloud so they can be accessed with mobile devices. But it is impossible to rummage through the remote folder directly. (Oddly, Apple intends to ditch its early foray into sync, called iDisk, this summer.)
The mobile strategy is still emerging. All the sync services make iOS applications (Google's is in the works). Many also offer versions for Android and Windows Phone. (As with so many things, BlackBerry is ignored with new releases.) Mobile devices can typically view and store documents in synced folders, but not add new ones, at least not easily.
Facebook is the one big holdout. This may look strange given the social network's emphasis on sharing information. Ever more data are stored as chunky photos and videos, as evinced by the company's recent purchase of Instagram, a photo-sharing service, for $1 billion. If Facebook decides to jump aboard the syncing ship this late in the game, it may need to splurge on more acquisitions.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Syncing data with mobile devices is possibly the most important development; the elephant in the room may be Windows Phone with OneNote and other apps, and Skydrive and Sharepoint syncing capabilities where it will not matter terribly if the device is unavailable because, after a remote wipe/disable, all the data is retored from the cloud onto a new device.
There's clearly a second shoe to drop from Apple on broader iCloud sync. They arguably have longer experience than anyone in the consumer space doing specialized data synchronization, (i.e. with iSync, the Sync Services framework, .Mac/MobileMe, and iTunes) but they don't exactly have a great record of doing it *well* and the MobileMe "iDisk" general purpose file sync service has always been pretty clunky.
As a long-time user and provider of tech support for other users of Apple devices and services, I'm hoping that the tentative and incomplete state of iCloud in its first iteration is the final case of an Apple project with "Steve Issues." One of Jobs' unique functions at Apple was to obsess on specific areas that annoyed him and defining a tough standard of greatness (rather than just "good enough" ) for releasing products that grabbed his brutally demanding attention. The current state of iCloud feels like Apple trimmed it back to the functionality that was in a Steve-worthy condition to hit a release date, and hopefully they have all the not-yet-great replacements for some of the rest of what MobileMe did (like prefs sync) and iDisk still getting the last bits of refinement for the next major release.
I use iCloud to sync my work from my iPad. It is essential. But it is clumsier to use on the desktop than dropbox because iOS documents - mostly Pages for me - are in a different format and have to be translated to OS X. This is the hidden problem, the one the post doesn't get at. Dropbox et al synch documents but don't translate them to account for variations between your devices. This may be where MS has an advantage because they say they're building Metro into all versions of the OS. That may allow them to translate formats better than Apple can now.
The real race, to me, is the ability to synch and translate. Let's say Apple does this. You then have an iPhone, an iPad and a laptop or desktop and are even more locked to their system. This is similar to the lock-in caused by MS Office, something Bill G recognized very early and which MS protected as long as possible by keeping file formats proprietary.
To add to azneo's comment, the TOS for Google says 2 contradictory things: that you own your content but that they own your content and can use it any way they want. They also say they can create derivative works from your content and that their ownership is forever. There is a suggestion in the examples that they mean things like translating - Google translate services - but the wording is absolute and incredibly broad.
My first thought reading it was: imagine if Apple used this wording. People would be all over them. I've been waiting for this to come up on slashdot because I'm looking forward to the excuses made on Google's behalf.
The TOS for Google Drive are currently unacceptable. I will not use and recommend that no one else does either until they change the TOS.
Here is the paragraph from the Google Drive TOS:
“When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes that we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.’’
Here is the total contrast from Apple's iCloud TOS:
"Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you."
In other words, Apple clearly states they have a license "solely for the purpose for which" your content was uploaded. They can adapt and modify "solely for the purpose for which" your content was uploaded. Google needs this kind of language. Otherwise, it's just people interpreting the TOS to mean what they hope it says.
This kind of licensing error has come up many times in recent years. A firm like Google should have learned from previous mistakes by others. Google doesn't want rights to use your stuff; it wants rights to prevent a basis on which it might be sued for storing your stuff on your behalf. For that, it needs limited rights.
Its contract is written incorrectly, because it encompasses too many unnecessary uses. So many other firms have written such contracts, and then, days or weeks later, revised them to restrict such rights to just what's needed. Your correspondent expects Google shall get a clue, too.
I wish I had that confidence in Google. I think they're far more concerned with their rights to do whatever they decide they want to do with your stuff than in detailing limits to their rights. They have become as tone deaf as Apple used to be.
Compare, for example, the kerfluffle over Apple's iBooks Author TOS. It was pretty clear but people read it to say that if you used iBooks Author you could only sell through Apple. They meant if you use iBooks Author, you can only sell that version through Apple but of course you can make any other version you want in any format you want. They clarified but they got endless flack. I'm waiting to see how Google responds because that will say a lot.
Apple's contract was a mistake, as is Google's. It's not confidence. Such contract language is nigh-on unenforceable because of the inequality and a lack of full rights' description. It is clearly in error, because the offending provisions could not be employed.
Twitterati are outraged by Google Drive's TOC: https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856
I am surprised that it did not feature in your blog post. Reading the TOC, why would anyone ever want to use Google Drive?
Actually, I'm more surprised at Amazon's absence. Its "clouds" for computing or storage are well-known. It has a free Cloud Drive for consumers, but the upload program doesn't have automatic synchronization (also I've found it will gladly upload the same file twice).
I'm not too eager for Facebook to handle my files, thanks.
Is nit Amazone under the scrutiny of tax? I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA
Syncing or cloud based computing is going to be the next wave of computing driven by SME's and individuals who need to access information from different places and do it securely. Email is just too cumbersome and has space limit and creating your own network is simply prohibitively expensive for SME's.
Hope that it triggers another wave of IT based revolution as did presence of computers did for major businesses in 1990's.
However the challenge remains to monetize it 5GB of data is enough for most of the individuals and SME's. It seems to be on the same model as other web based product attract first then later think about revenues.
Going to be another fantastic deal for tech savvy entrepreneurs and people.
I love the fast search engine Google. Yahoo is okay but slightly slow . AsK, Bing, Msn, are okay but I think when it comes to the inner working of Google It is the best. Say you delete a file, you have an option to get this back. Google Drive is everywhere you are—on the web, in your home, at the office and on the go. So wherever you are, your stuff is just...there. Ready to go, ready to share. Get started with 5 GB free.
Google Drive is available for:
PC and Mac
iPhone and iPad (coming soon)
Android devices
I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA