Slashdot Mirror
1GB of Google Drive Storage Now Costs Only $0.02 Per Month
SmartAboutThings writes "Up until today, I always had the impression that cloud storage was pretty expensive and I'm sure that many will agree with me. It's a good thing that some bright minds over at Google have the same impressions as they now have drastically discounted the monthly storage plans on Google Drive. The new monthly storage plans and their previous prices are as follows: $1.99 for 100GB (previously $4.99), $9.99 for 1TB (previously $49.99), and $99.99 for 10TB.The 2 dollar plan per month means that the price for a gigabyte gets down to an incredibly low price of only two cents per month."
...with the company that specializes in data mining!
I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
And you can use it anywhere. And it has USB 3.0 speed. And it won't be data mined by Google.
Just upload encrypted filesystem containers and go about your business.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
How much does it cost you to get that terabytes worth of data from your local computer to Google Drive?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I'm curious, how much does it cost to run a Slashvertisement like this? I'm putting together a marketing plan and want to see if it fits within my budget.
I've always been wondering why no Google-equivalent (or Facebook, or Twitter, or Amazon, for that matter) came out of Europe. Not every one is comfortable storing personal or business data on servers in the US.
A 4TB drive is under 200 USD from several vendors. That is only $.05/GB. So, at 0.24/yr. This is 5..10X more expensive than commercial off the shelf home drive space assuming you have to buy a new drive every 1-2 years. That time figure is pretty conservative.
So, yeah, you maybe cloud storage gives you some replication, and the syncing of that replication costs some amount of money for bandwidth. How much extra that reliability costs really depends on the data dynamics, though and isn't as easy to estimate.
Also, 5..10X more is just about the ratio of SSD storage to magnetic disks. SSD is considered "relatively expensive storage" by most people I know.
"The 2 dollar plan per month means that the price for a gigabyte gets down to an incredibly low price of only two cents per month."
Translation, please. I must have missed something.
The NSA has an even better deal. The only price you pay for storage of all of your data is your freedom.
The algorithms scanning through it , trying to make marketing sense of all that data are expensive ..
__________________
whoppie facebook is free !!!!
... but for a lot of people, moving the data to and from the storage is what's really going to be costly. It'll be interesting to see how much of that disk space ends up going unused when word gets around about how much users get clobbered with data overage charges by AT&T, et al trying to use the cheap disk space.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
1GB is FREE. Up 15GB is FREE
Information is a hell of a drug.
You get charged for bandwidth so don't think it's cheap
did you forget to take your meds?
$1.99 for 100GB (previously $4.99), $9.99 for 1TB (previously $49.99), and $99.99 for 10TB.The 2 dollar plan per month means that the price for a gigabyte gets down to an incredibly low price of only two cents per month.
While it's true that the 2-dollar plan per month are $0.02 per month, the other plans are only $0.01 per month. Failing to mention this is bad math.
Here is a table of prices:
$2 / 100 GB / month ==> $0.02 / month
$10 / 1 TB / month ==> $0.01 / month
$100 / 10 TB / month ==> $0.02 / month
(Yes, I know it's technically $1.99 and not $2.00, but let's face it... prices ending in ".99" are retarded.)
No Windows support and no GUI. This should totally appeal to the masses.
If you're looking for long-term archival storage, Amazon Glacier is a pretty good deal at a $0.01/GB. I backed a few hundred GB's of data there and it's only costing me a few dollars/month. Restores will cost money, but if my house burns down and I lose my NAS + backups, I won't mind paying them a few hundred dollars to restore my data to a hard drive and ship it to me. Does Google Drive provide a way to ship your data on a hard drive? It would take me days or weeks to download data over my currrent internet connection (assuming I don't hit my ISP's data cap)
Why do I get the feeling this was a paid ad?
I'll stick with SpiderOak and TarSnap Fully encrypted, zero knowledge from their end. A bit more money but good peace of mind.
Trolling is a art,
It is when compared to 10TB of local storage.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Good luck data mining my TrueCrypt containers ...
10TB for $99 a month isn't too terrible for a backup if you value your data enough to do so.
That's $1200 a year. For the same $1200 you can buy a NAS box of equal or greater capacity that's yours and doesn't require monthly payments.
Now, if only they would make a Linux client. Then, I might use it. Until then, Dropbox all the way!
But that NAS is likely sitting at your location, which means if it gets burned down by insane meth heads or swallowed by a sinkhole, you're good and screwed.
For my business, I use DFS that replicates our shared drives at all three locations, so I feel fairly confident that an almost up-to-date mirror of the data is being held at two other locations, all of which are separated by a lot of miles. Coupled with offsite backup, I feel the business data is secure.
At the moment my personal data is on Dropbox, with my absolutely confidential data in a Truecrypt container. Still, Dropbox is kind of expensive for the 7 or 8gb of data I'd like to store, so I will definitely be considering Google's offering. Since both work the same, at least for the PC versions, in that each computer has a full copy of the data, if Google goes offline or pulls the plug, I still have my multiple copies sitting around.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The point of a google drive backup is to have an offsite backup. Now, I agree you could set up that machine at a friend's house (or familly member) and get the offsite backup with a little bit of network configuration.
I know it is a paid advertisement but still, those prices are NOT incredibly low, they are still significantly more than purchasing your drives and doing it yourself and they are supposedly getting the benefit of scale as well as the benefit of being able to mine and sell your data.
I love Dropbox even though it is expensive ^_^
Free is 15GB
Yep...and how much does it cost if you add a backup solution and off-site replication?
Another $1200 NAS
Somewhere to put it
Connectivity
Maintenance and/or monitoring
Cheaper? Probably (for now). Cheaper enough to be worth if if you value your data? Not for me.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
10TB for $99 a month isn't too terrible for a backup if you value your data enough to do so.
That's $1200 a year. For the same $1200 you can buy a NAS box of equal or greater capacity that's yours and doesn't require monthly payments.
Pretty close.
Still, even at the price points I linked to it's still under a two-year payback window, and that includes setting the backup up as Raid 5 so you have some basic redundancy...
It doesn't help with the 'but what if the house burns down' argument, though. Unless you set it up at a friends house and use FTP, I suppose.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
I posted this on the other 20TB backup article, however I see I got downrated. But I feel this is in it's right place at this article too :)
Cheers.
Until your house burns down.
Salut,
Jacques
You need two of those 1200 NAS boxes, and you have to replace failed drives, and you have to move storage off site in case of fire, theft, foo, bar. $1200 for 10TB of storage is so incredibly cheap. It was only 15 years ago that we used to sell 100GB NAS boxes for $100,000.
Salut,
Jacques
Now my "disable advertising" checkbox doesn't work. :-(
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Yeah, not really an issue, assuming we can trust gpg et al :)
Salut,
Jacques
Just upload encrypted filesystem containers and go about your business.
Truecrypt containers are nice, but the downside is that the entire container has to be re-uploaded every time something inside it is changed. Good argument for having multiple small containers, but then it's a bit of a shell game figuring out where your data is...
If you're looking for file-by-file encryption, try AxCrypt. It can bulk encrypt / decrypt files, apply strong encryption, and securely shreds the temporaries once you close up a file you opened for whatever reason. And it's also open source ;)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
If you already buy storage from Google you'll get that storage in addition to the new plan. In my case I get 125 GB for $1.99/mo.
> Until your house burns down.
OK. So who here has ever had their house burn down? ANYONE?
[crickets chirp]
Once you've got more than one copy of something it's trivial for even the biggest technical rube to sneakernet it somewhere else. On the other hand, it's terribly cumbersome to copy much of anything into the cloud.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So, basically, you're paying them $40 to power $100 worth of storage, or a rental per month of ... seriously, that's quite the markup.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
How does that compare to encfs?
Not sure, haven't used it :)
AxCrypt has an excellent user interface, though, and provides a self-decrypting option where you can encrypt a file, email it and the other person doesn't have to install AxCrypt to be able to decrypt it, they just need the shared secret (file or password or both). It doesn't automatically obscure the filenames, however, which it seems like encfs does (?)
I'm trying to figure out how encfs works: it's a filesystem / folder encryption program, yet the files are still individually visible to the operating system so you can back them up individually / move them around? Is that right? AxCrypt doesn't care where the encrypted file is, you can move it to a thumb drive, throw it on a cd, or throw it in DropBox...sounds like with encfs you can do the same, only it's a whole folder that you have to move all together, is that right?
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
640 kB ought to be enough for anybody.
Why not compare the price of google cloud storage, with the cost of cloud storage from google competitors?
Don't you think that would be a meaningful comparison?
...can I pay them in Dogecoins?
According to this article only DropBox supports re-syncing just parts of a file that have changed. Google Drive re-uploads the entire file every time, so if you have a 10GB TrueCrypt container and change a few bytes in a text file it re-uploads 10GB.
Even DropBox has problems with TrueCrypt though if you try to share the container between multiple machines. It's okay for just doing backups from a single machine though.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If that's "cheap" what would you call https://mega.co.nz/
They offer 50GBytes for FREE...
50 / 0 = !@#%$^*&^&(*$%^&
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I have a friend whose computer room burnt down because the desk fan pointed at the server to keep it cool died and caught alight. All data on hard drives lost. Very unhappy wife.
...there is no sig...
Dropbox still has one key feature that Google Drive can't figure out: incremental updates. That means that small changes in big files do not require the entire file to be uploaded again. IN your case, a large Truecrypt continuer will change frequently (or parts thereof). Dropbox won't blink an eye when it does delta change updates. Google Drive will upload the WHOLE thing once again. If you're using truecrypt, dropbox is your only practical choice.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
I have had two different houses in different towns flooded.
It's now subsidized by the NSA?
The secret hiding in plain sight is the egress traffic costs.
Both Amazon and Google hike their egress traffic prices so that you want to do all your processing in their Cloud.
Just look at the cost of transfering 1TB OUT of the Google Cloud. It will cost you $120. So there is an equivalence between storing data for 6 months and trasferring it out once.
What you really need to understand is that storage is subsidised because of the network effect and lockin it provides. You can put your data there, but you cannot afford to get it out.
Just compare this to bulk transfer prices on ISPs to see how ridiculous the egress traffic prices are. On 100tb.com you get a server with 100TB egress for $200/month, which works out to $2 per TB, a fraction of what Google charge. Amazon is similar.
Amazon's CDN is consistently rated to be the worst in benchmarks, so although not a totally fair comparison, their network is certainly not "golden".
TL;DR the egress bandwidth is what you should look at.
From the user's point of view, the cost is a bit different. It's x cents per month for storage, plus whatever you pay for internet access.
And, of course, the fact that there's no question Uncle Sam will be pawing through your Rule 34 collection.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
99.99% of houses with a NAS do not burn due to meth heads in a year, so the reliability is the same.
These are official NAS-stats.
And in other news websites, they make it CLEAR that 15GB of drive storage will cost you £0.00!
Go Slashadvert!
A "better" slashdot news article would of contained:
- Data transfer Benchmarks
- System infrastructure information
But seems we are way past that in 2014, trying to blind everyone with pure ignorance. Shame. Good news for Beta i suppose!
Well, there IS the unofficial google-drive-ocamlfuse project.
... because of referrals. https://copy.com?r=Zv8zHi