5 ms·

The pedigree of the founders probably factors into it. Many VCs take the "we invest in people first" idea very seriously. For them a super-impressive team sells

by api 10y ago

The pedigree of the founders probably factors into it. Many VCs take the "we invest in people first" idea very seriously. For them a super-impressive team sells itself, while a less impressive team could only get funded with a ton of traction and proof. It's just reality. That being said, it's not a terrible idea for a certain customer base. I am disappointed at the apparent lack of first class security features though. That would be a differentiator. But I haven't looked hard... maybe they are below the fold. They talk about securing their platform but not about how I might secure my data. Edit: why do none of the big cloud drive and sync providers offer basic symmetric local encryption of data? This is easier to implement by far than sync and I for one would pay for this.

roymurdock 10y ago
Seems like they're taking Dropbox a step further and creating an OS-like application that will run across most types of machines, rather than just a web service/finder plugin. Which is an interesting idea given the advance of thin clients/chromebook-like devices, but will require cheaper and faster internet connectivity, and as you point out, security. I guess I can see this working in the corporate environment where the client machines will always be connected to the internet, and will really only be used for web browsing, word, excel, and ppt (a few 10s of gigs), but I'm very doubtful on its ability to penetrate the personal market. Personally I have absolutely no reason to spread my 100s of gigs of docs, music, and photos across yet another set of servers...and pay a yearly fee for the convenience of having a slightly thinner laptop and not having to plugin my time machine backup every week while opening myself up to trusting another third party service?
jasonsync 10y ago
We're building a secure cloud storage, sync and share Dropbox alternative with local, end-to-end encryption built in: https://www.sync.com https://www.sync.com > Why do none of the big cloud providers offer local encryption? - They want to police your files - Free services typically monetize you through data mining your files (eg. Google Drive) - It's difficult (not impossible) to build in usability features that might need to access, scan or manipulate your file data, when you don't have access to the file data server-side in the cloud (everything has to be pulled down locally first which adds overhead). - Browser support for local HTML5 saveAs() etc. handling is still all over the map (Safari is almost a showstopper). - Easy account recovery options are limited The tech is getting better though, and there's certainly a number of good options in terms of cloud storage with local encryption built in, including Sync!
- IanCal 10y ago
  > Free services typically monetize you through data mining your files (eg. Google Drive) Do you have a source that Google drive is mining my files? Free vs paid vs business?
  - jasonsync 10y ago
    Sure, from Google's TOS: https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored.
    - IanCal 10y ago
      https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/drive/HgAeG7ljlZA;context-place=topicsearchin/drive/advertising https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/drive/HgAeG7l... > As with Google Docs previously, we do not target ads to you based on the content of your files. Our servers index the files you put into Drive in order to provide features like fast search, virus detection and optical character recognition.
      - jasonsync 10y ago
        Easy for a community manager to say, but she didn't agree to the blanket terms of service. You did. The binding TOS explicitly states they may analyze your content, and the analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, AND when it is stored. If what the community manager says is true, it would be awesome if Google actually updated the TOS to clarify that file AND file meta data in Google Drive are exempt. I mean I love my Chromebook, and it came with 100 GB of Google Drive free. But I have no idea how much access Google has to the files, so I can only assume the TOS is accurate. == There's many choice quotes from Google employees that contradict, skirt around or gloss over these issues: Are files stored on Google Drive Encrypted? You'll note the first response doesn't answer the question. Then finally a contradicting response: That's a valid question. Google Drive does NOT currently encrypt files on the server. Our team and our company take the security and privacy of our users very seriously. https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/6AdrOutSoFU/sgixqxX3yfQJ https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/6AdrOutSoFU/sgi... == Here's a funny conversation regarding web search history being on by default across all your devices: I can't believe that this option is enabled by default! Clearly it should be DISabled by default if Google cares at all about their users' security and privacy. It's one thing that Google collects anonymous data about what people search for and do online, but to collect a database of detailed personally identifiable information on an opt-out instead of an opt-in basis? The product manager isn't quite sure either: I'm a PM at Google working on Personalized Search / Web History ... We've found that it is difficult to articulate the usefulness of having Web History turned on without trying it out for yourself. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/12cW5YPyvzY/McZXqsIzP8oJ;noredirect=true https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/12cW5... ==

by api 10y ago

roymurdock 10y ago

Seems like they're taking Dropbox a step further and creating an OS-like application that will run across most types of machines, rather than just a web service/finder plugin. Which is an interesting idea given the advance of thin clients/chromebook-like devices, but will require cheaper and faster internet connectivity, and as you point out, security. I guess I can see this working in the corporate environment where the client machines will always be connected to the internet, and will really only be used for web browsing, word, excel, and ppt (a few 10s of gigs), but I'm very doubtful on its ability to penetrate the personal market. Personally I have absolutely no reason to spread my 100s of gigs of docs, music, and photos across yet another set of servers...and pay a yearly fee for the convenience of having a slightly thinner laptop and not having to plugin my time machine backup every week while opening myself up to trusting another third party service?

jasonsync 10y ago

We're building a secure cloud storage, sync and share Dropbox alternative with local, end-to-end encryption built in: https://www.sync.com https://www.sync.com > Why do none of the big cloud providers offer local encryption? - They want to police your files - Free services typically monetize you through data mining your files (eg. Google Drive) - It's difficult (not impossible) to build in usability features that might need to access, scan or manipulate your file data, when you don't have access to the file data server-side in the cloud (everything has to be pulled down locally first which adds overhead). - Browser support for local HTML5 saveAs() etc. handling is still all over the map (Safari is almost a showstopper). - Easy account recovery options are limited The tech is getting better though, and there's certainly a number of good options in terms of cloud storage with local encryption built in, including Sync!

IanCal 10y ago
> Free services typically monetize you through data mining your files (eg. Google Drive) Do you have a source that Google drive is mining my files? Free vs paid vs business?
- jasonsync 10y ago
  Sure, from Google's TOS: https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/drive/HgAeG7ljlZA;context-place=topicsearchin/drive/advertising https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/drive/HgAeG7l... > As with Google Docs previously, we do not target ads to you based on the content of your files. Our servers index the files you put into Drive in order to provide features like fast search, virus detection and optical character recognition.
    - jasonsync 10y ago
      Easy for a community manager to say, but she didn't agree to the blanket terms of service. You did. The binding TOS explicitly states they may analyze your content, and the analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, AND when it is stored. If what the community manager says is true, it would be awesome if Google actually updated the TOS to clarify that file AND file meta data in Google Drive are exempt. I mean I love my Chromebook, and it came with 100 GB of Google Drive free. But I have no idea how much access Google has to the files, so I can only assume the TOS is accurate. == There's many choice quotes from Google employees that contradict, skirt around or gloss over these issues: Are files stored on Google Drive Encrypted? You'll note the first response doesn't answer the question. Then finally a contradicting response: That's a valid question. Google Drive does NOT currently encrypt files on the server. Our team and our company take the security and privacy of our users very seriously. https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/6AdrOutSoFU/sgixqxX3yfQJ https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/drive/6AdrOutSoFU/sgi... == Here's a funny conversation regarding web search history being on by default across all your devices: I can't believe that this option is enabled by default! Clearly it should be DISabled by default if Google cares at all about their users' security and privacy. It's one thing that Google collects anonymous data about what people search for and do online, but to collect a database of detailed personally identifiable information on an opt-out instead of an opt-in basis? The product manager isn't quite sure either: I'm a PM at Google working on Personalized Search / Web History ... We've found that it is difficult to articulate the usefulness of having Web History turned on without trying it out for yourself. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/12cW5YPyvzY/McZXqsIzP8oJ;noredirect=true https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/12cW5... ==