Inklings of online storage: Google Web Drive

For quite some time there have been rumblings about "GDrive," some kind of online storage site. Despite the demise of AOL's XDrive storage service and the closure of various not-so-great-after-all Google projects, including Google's Palimpsest project for storing research data, the possibility remains that the company could offer some sort of online storage system. Google is after all a big fan of cloud computing, and data storage is an important piece of the possible architecture.

A project called Platypus in 2006 indicated that Google employees get internal storage, which makes sense even from a backup and corporate IT perspective. There were some new noises on Sunday at Google Blogoscoped that sniffed out references to another possibility, though, called Google Web Drive.

The new Picasa for Mac beta version included a "Move to Collection" command for handling folders, and one option is "Google Web Drive," according to the post. Google confirmed that the menu item was present in the software but was removed a day after release in an update, but the company wouldn't comment further.

And a further Blogoscoped posting Tuesday referred to a now-deleted online document that mentioned not just Platypus, but also Google Web Drive.

Google already offers online storage, of course, with Gmail, Google Docs, Picasa Web Albums, YouTube and any number of other services. The question is whether the company sees merit to a general-purpose file repository. Microsoft offers such a beast with its free 25GB storage through SkyDrive--helpfully synchronizing local and cloud-based files through Live Mesh, and Yahoo has its Briefcase, so there are precedents among competitors.

But here's the catch. The more useful an online storage system is, the harder it is to build and the more expensive it is to run.

A password-protected general-purpose online file system is easier to do with a basic Web site for uploading or downloading files. But what about tighter integration with computers, so for example you could set up Quicken to back up records to an Internet-based service the same way it can with, for example, a USB drive? How about natively supporting different operating systems, each with different file systems? How about automated backup of your entire hard drive?

The technology quickly gets more complicated, and storage is something you don't want to mess up. People get angry when their data disappears.

But it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Google could offer it to paying Google Apps corporate customers, either included in their subscriptions or as a premium option. That would defray the expense of operating at scale and limit it to a more manageable size of users while potentially making Google Apps more appealing.

[loose_screw]

I wish they'd start by offering more online storage for picasa. 1GB is piddly compared to what flickr and SkyDrive offer for free. It's one of the major barriers that keep me from utilizing it too much.

[yacahuma]

Dont think it has to be complicated. Just use some kind of secure ftp as the standard protocol. Thats it.

[hadaso]

Why FTP? WebDAV might be better.
FastMail.fm provides file storage with both WbeDAV and FTP, both secure (encrypted) or not.
It can be mapped into a local drive on all major OSes. You can open a file or save directly from the menus inside yours local applications.

[bbbcase]

It sounds like you're describing Jungle Disk - it does all that and more with Amazon S3.

[Ezra--2008]

I'm surprised that Stephen did no mention Amazon's S3 service. Granted, it is not particularly user-friendly, but there are various software applications to help with access to Amazon's cloud for backups and other storage. I started using it but have since removed my files because I found it to be too expensive, especially relative to the ever declining cost of external hard disk storage. More recently, Amazon has lowered prices so I may revisit that option in the future. A problem with the Amazon solution, and one which Google might be more inclined to address, is that their system is really designed for "industrial" use whereas I am a "retail" user -- I found it impossible to see the structure of the files that I stored in S3, for example. Nonetheless, it would be good to have an inexpensive option to store vital files (e.g., personal records, photos) off-site, in the secure, backed-up cloud in the event of disaster.

[Shankland]

I didn't mention S3 because it's not really consumer-facing. It's more of a back-end service that helps some Internet site you use in the background. It's a serious technology, to be sure, but not one designed for the average person. I almost mentioned it in the context of Google possibly using it to power Gdrive, but then I figured, nah, the company would be vastly more likely to build its own.

[paranoid.one]

I think the better question is "why hasn't google offered something like S3?" It seems like the sort of think Google should be doing.

As for S3, the comment below correctly observes that it is not a consumer facing solution. That said, several companies have built excellent consumer facing solution on top of it. Someone above alluded to JungleDisk (now Rackspace), which is a simple front-end for it, and ElephantDrive is a highly developed storage/backup/sharing service. I would think it would make sense to check out one of these first.

[AvatarXone]

Yes. Google Web Drive does exist internally for Google Employees but as a product it would consume more bandwidth and resources than gtalk, Google Docs and gmail PUT TOGETHER. and i need to remind anyone that neither gtalk, google docs or gmail for that matter produce any real actual money?.

Google Web Drive consume would only be second to YouTube and YouTube has not only not produced a cent but it is still losing money. that is the why of the frenetic race and experimentation to monetize it as much as possible in whatever number of ways they can find. that is a case of not wanting to make money. just not lose it. and later do think on making money.

So. yeah i do think and I DO KNOW that the only reason for not releasing Google Web Drive is cost. i would not be surprised if the product already existed as something ready for consumers but was only being hold out for when they feel they can take the bullet. but even if they do release it. competing with Microsoft on that one will be very hard . Right now you have 25gb`s FOR FREE with a Live ID. 30 if you have Live Mesh. a good point of perspective on how hard storage is to look at what Apple charges for MobileME (and still failed baaaaad) , how AOL was unable to manage Xdrive (something that i find shocking) and that was the exact equivalent to Skydrive before Live Wave3. how Yahoo not even dared to play that game by being ambiguous on Yahoo Mail Storage and never consolidate a true solution for free storage and finally how HP online storage service failed miserably when it launched.

Those should be strong points on how hard and expensive is to offer a Online Storage service.

[opiapr]

I don't know from where you get your data but FYI GMAIL and YOUTUBE are profitable by Google and analyst claims. I for sure had clicked on ads on both site.

[AvatarXone]

@opiapr:errr. no. you are just confused with the terms. i never said they didn`t had revenue. in the case of YouTube they do have revenue but it don`t covers the cost of what YouTube cost to operate. that is a lie. it also don`t covers the money Google paid for it either. Gmail is is profitable but not from the consumer side of Gmail. but from the whitelist side implementations.

I will give you a good example: Xbox Live costs 50 dlls a year. it has around 10 million gold users but that don`t translates to 500 million dlls in revenue as xbox live trails and cards are sold at discounts. in reality they only transfer to 30 per card = 300 million but Xbox Live overall cost is already around that. another example are the operative costs of WOW. just imagine how much it costs to power YouTube?. i doub`t it costs less than Xbox Live. how much gDrive will cost if it is free?. that is the real iisue.

FYI: i also have seen the reports. but the only ones that matter are the ones by Google. not the ones by analysts and even then you have to crunch a lot of numbers around to get a clear idea of what the reported numbers mean.

[amigosito]

Google already offers a :shared storage plan" for Picasa Web Albums and Gmail:

"After purchasing a storage plan, some of your individual Google services (e.g. email and photos) will share a single new storage space."

And it's not cheap, relative to what I'd pay for a traditional Web host for a similar amount of space
- 10 GB is $20.00 per year
- 40 GB is $75.00 per year
- 150 GB is $250.00 per year
- 400 GB is $500.00 per year

I agree that application/service integration could add value--for example, I'd love to be able to store and access my iTunes music online...I've tried this with iTunes and you can actually designate a remote WebDAV drive as your iTunes library. So in theory Apple could offer music storage as an add-on to MobileMe, enabling customers to buy music or rent/buy movies and have them "instantly downloaded" to their online storage area instead of downloaded to the client.

But for Google to do this without the right kind of content to offer, it's a hard sell. I think the Web Drive would make more sense as part of a Web-based Google OS aimed at consumers with netbooks and such. But right now there is little/no integration between Google Apps and other properties such as Picasa Web Albums. My Web host allows me to use Google Apps with my domain name, so I get to log into to Email, Docs, etc. with [e-mail], but Picasa is not part of this system, so I have to maintain a separate Google account for my photos. Pain in the arse!

[MSSlayer]

Oh yeah. I am going to let Google rummage through my files so they can use it to sell ads.

Just say no to spyware.

[jdereg]

Check out http://www.myotherdrive.com for online storage. They blend online backup with file sharing. Free and paid accounts - best prices available.

[sanenazok]

Uhm, I've been using Yahoo Briefcase for about 10 years now. Granted it's only a few MB, but that's fine for docs.

[spdickey1]

Well scratch Yahoo! Briefcase from your list and grab your files now. Its closing in March.... so goodbye to one place in the cloud to store your stuff.