11 ms·

Okay, so it could be a bug, but it is possible that iCloud is secretly storing more than one version of the file in some cases? (After all, Apple does similar

by mft_ 3y ago

Okay, so it could be a bug, but it is possible that iCloud is secretly storing more than one version of the file in some cases? (After all, Apple does similar things with other media files.) The example given at the end is interesting: > So iCloud says the video is 128MB, I download it and the video is actually 48MB, and my free storage increases by ~170MB when I deleted it. Interesting! This suggests that iCloud isn't simply misrepresenting the size of the example file, as then you'd expect that deleting the 128MB file would clear ~128MB of iCloud space. Instead, the deletion clears roughly the space it reports (128MB) plus the space of the downloaded version (48MB): 128MB + 48MB = 176 MB - which might be close enough, allowing for rounding errors, as iCloud reports the free space (from the article's example) to the nearest 10 MB.

Nextgrid 3y ago
That's probably indeed the case, but it doesn't excuse it. When you buy a hard drive or USB stick, you get a certain amount of GBs to use as you please. If you put a 1GB file on it your free space decreases by 1GB (yes this is filesystem dependent and you might lose a few KBs for metadata, but the choice of filesystem is up to you and not mandated by the storage decide). It doesn't matter that the NAND controller probably used a few megabytes of the overprovisioned area to store its block mapping tables, or maybe even duplicated your data for its convenience - you were never charged for that overprovisioned area. Here, you are sold a storage device (that you access over HTTP instead of SATA/PCIe), but when you write a 1GB file, they duplicate/convert/etc it for their convenience yet still charge you to store those duplicates you haven't asked for. That's new and unexpected.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >That's new and unexpected. For you (and me) perhaps, but not for most people[1] who appreciate having the file system abstracted away. [1]: https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/09/27/2032200/students-dont-know-what-files-and-folders-are-professors-say https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/09/27/2032200/students-do...
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  Don't get the complaints, you can use different messaging apps, that don't do that to your oCloud
Machado117 3y ago
On iPhone, the edits to pictures and videos are just metadata and the original file is kept. I just tested recording a video, cutting it in half and downloading the file from iCloud. The cut file it's smaller than the iCloud reported size however if I choose to download the unmodified original the size matches the iCloud reported size.
isodev 3y ago
I think the confusion here is also rooted at the fact that photos and videos in the Photos library are not simply files copied to storage. Photos also stores metadata about edits, renditions and thumbnails and other data needed for various functions of the Photos app. So when you’re syncing photos to iCloud, it’s not just the individual files that get synced but it’s the “Photos Library” managed container of the Photos app. If you add individual files directly in Finder or the Files app then their size matches exactly both in iCloud and on the local file system.
frostix 3y ago
Differential backups or any sort of versioning seemed like one of the most obvious culprits (that and or total redundant storage to preserve the file) but the issue with all of this is it’s entirely opaque. Ultimately you’re increasingly tethered to some service for your storage that you pay for periodically based on total storage yet you have little-to-no information how to best optimize that storage if you want to operate in a fixed cost bracket or lower storage/cost ratio. So as a consumer, do I just wave my hands and keep throwing more and more money at the problem, especially now that devices are increasingly pushing everything, including storage, as a subscription service to meet my actual functional needs (that realistically could be met by local storage options if manufacturers didn’t have a vested interest in pushing me towards service based storage solutions)? The modern business strategy in technology is simply hiding behind complexity. The cost is too complex for you to understand, it gives too much information away about our internals to competitors, and so on. Yet somehow these metrics are derived to assure the business is operating above cost because when the rubber meets the road it must be done, yet when the consumer wants to understand it’s suddenly too complex. The problem is that tech in many cases is growing to scales that really is too complex and business managers know this, so it’s often a valid excuse to hide behind. Conveniently that’s where they focus on investment and padding margins though.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >So as a consumer, do I just wave my hands and keep throwing more and more money at the problem, Yes. I can go and buy 1TB of Microsoft OneDrive or 2TB of Google Drive for less than a Franklin a year, and most people won't even need 1TB let alone 2TB. Both Microsoft and Google also offer 100GB plans for a Jackson a year, which is what I purchase myself. The average person can get by paying a Washington per month to Apple for 50GB of iCloud. The amount of money I would save from managing photos myself locally isn't worth the time spent nor the money spent on the hardware. EDIT: For the downvoters, consider this: If I were to manage all this myself, I would need at least three storage mediums with one being a different form factor to satisfy the 3-2-1 backup scheme. I would also need to procure arrangements for that third backup copy in the 3-2-1 scheme. And I would need to spend time managing it all. That is going to cost me more than a Franklin per year. Life is short, my time is precious, and my money is ultimately expendable.

by mft_ 3y ago

Nextgrid 3y ago

That's probably indeed the case, but it doesn't excuse it. When you buy a hard drive or USB stick, you get a certain amount of GBs to use as you please. If you put a 1GB file on it your free space decreases by 1GB (yes this is filesystem dependent and you might lose a few KBs for metadata, but the choice of filesystem is up to you and not mandated by the storage decide). It doesn't matter that the NAND controller probably used a few megabytes of the overprovisioned area to store its block mapping tables, or maybe even duplicated your data for its convenience - you were never charged for that overprovisioned area. Here, you are sold a storage device (that you access over HTTP instead of SATA/PCIe), but when you write a 1GB file, they duplicate/convert/etc it for their convenience yet still charge you to store those duplicates you haven't asked for. That's new and unexpected.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>That's new and unexpected. For you (and me) perhaps, but not for most people[1] who appreciate having the file system abstracted away. [1]: https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/09/27/2032200/students-dont-know-what-files-and-folders-are-professors-say https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/09/27/2032200/students-do...
tcfhgj 3y ago
Don't get the complaints, you can use different messaging apps, that don't do that to your oCloud

Machado117 3y ago

On iPhone, the edits to pictures and videos are just metadata and the original file is kept. I just tested recording a video, cutting it in half and downloading the file from iCloud. The cut file it's smaller than the iCloud reported size however if I choose to download the unmodified original the size matches the iCloud reported size.

isodev 3y ago

I think the confusion here is also rooted at the fact that photos and videos in the Photos library are not simply files copied to storage. Photos also stores metadata about edits, renditions and thumbnails and other data needed for various functions of the Photos app. So when you’re syncing photos to iCloud, it’s not just the individual files that get synced but it’s the “Photos Library” managed container of the Photos app. If you add individual files directly in Finder or the Files app then their size matches exactly both in iCloud and on the local file system.

frostix 3y ago

Differential backups or any sort of versioning seemed like one of the most obvious culprits (that and or total redundant storage to preserve the file) but the issue with all of this is it’s entirely opaque. Ultimately you’re increasingly tethered to some service for your storage that you pay for periodically based on total storage yet you have little-to-no information how to best optimize that storage if you want to operate in a fixed cost bracket or lower storage/cost ratio. So as a consumer, do I just wave my hands and keep throwing more and more money at the problem, especially now that devices are increasingly pushing everything, including storage, as a subscription service to meet my actual functional needs (that realistically could be met by local storage options if manufacturers didn’t have a vested interest in pushing me towards service based storage solutions)? The modern business strategy in technology is simply hiding behind complexity. The cost is too complex for you to understand, it gives too much information away about our internals to competitors, and so on. Yet somehow these metrics are derived to assure the business is operating above cost because when the rubber meets the road it must be done, yet when the consumer wants to understand it’s suddenly too complex. The problem is that tech in many cases is growing to scales that really is too complex and business managers know this, so it’s often a valid excuse to hide behind. Conveniently that’s where they focus on investment and padding margins though.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>So as a consumer, do I just wave my hands and keep throwing more and more money at the problem, Yes. I can go and buy 1TB of Microsoft OneDrive or 2TB of Google Drive for less than a Franklin a year, and most people won't even need 1TB let alone 2TB. Both Microsoft and Google also offer 100GB plans for a Jackson a year, which is what I purchase myself. The average person can get by paying a Washington per month to Apple for 50GB of iCloud. The amount of money I would save from managing photos myself locally isn't worth the time spent nor the money spent on the hardware. EDIT: For the downvoters, consider this: If I were to manage all this myself, I would need at least three storage mediums with one being a different form factor to satisfy the 3-2-1 backup scheme. I would also need to procure arrangements for that third backup copy in the 3-2-1 scheme. And I would need to spend time managing it all. That is going to cost me more than a Franklin per year. Life is short, my time is precious, and my money is ultimately expendable.