
Dropbox Owns Cloud Storage on Mobile - droidz
https://cloudrail.com/cloud-storage-report-dropbox-owns-cloud-storage-mobile/
======
larrik
From among CloudRail powered mobile apps. Meaning iCloud isn't considered at
all. Interesting finding, but needs an asterisk.

~~~
niftich
I don't claim to represent the average app developer but I've never so much as
heard of CloudRail, them claiming to be a "Unified API integration leader" and
all. I can't find them being written about by someone like Gartner; some other
sources claim that they're a European startup in the IoT integration space.

I guess I'm not sure what to make of some unknown-to-me company's study on
usage of its own SDK for cloud storage; and this study being posted in 'news
release'-style on their blog. To me, these are huge grains of salt.

~~~
droidz
I've heard of them before a couple times but frankly, I don't know how good
the source is. Just considered it interesting and I'm a Dropbox only user as
well.

~~~
camiller
I'm a "use all the free space I can get from whichever provider" user. Across
the providers I use I have 207.25 GB of storage.Dropbox, Drive, Box, and
OneDrive all integrate with Astro file manager on my phone. Media Fire and
AT&T Locker thru only their own apps. Astro may or may not use cloud rail
internally to abstract away the apis for each different server. Although Astro
does not offer egnyte so probably not.

That doesn't include Amazon's unlimited free storage for photos with our
family prime account.

Oh, and a 1 TB Western Digital personal cloud drive...

~~~
Cyph0n
I decided that it's not worth the hassle to keep track of so many accounts, so
I fork over $2/month to get 100 GB on Google Drive. I was going to get
OneDrive, but I have no need for the whole Office 365 shenanigans.

~~~
camiller
I do understand that point of view. And did consider it, but the way I use the
different services is segmented by what I use them for which works for me. box
is the backup of just my Calibre library, amazon photos, google drive is just
documents, spreadsheets, etc.

------
Wintamute
I really don't understand Dropbox. For the average user that wants to store,
say, a few tens of GBs Dropbox costs $9.99 a month. Nevermind it gives 1TB
total, most people don't need that much. iCloud, for example, costs
$0.99/month. That's an _order of magnitude_ more expensive.

Whichever way you slice it, it seems like Dropbox's core user base, that pays
but doesn't take full advantage of the 1TB is bank-rolling the free accounts
and the accounts that max out their paid storage.

I don't know why people put up with it?

~~~
Afforess
Dropbox works.

Put aside all the concerns over War Crimes or Spying, or Security, Dropbox
simply works. Every mobile platform is supported. Every desktop platform is
supported. Sharing, Teams, direct links, all the core features are there.
Anyone can safely recommend and share Dropbox files with their Grandma (with a
PC still running XP), or their Mac loving parents, or their weird hipster
friend running Gentoo GNU/Linux, and Dropbox will still work.

A lot of HN prioritizes things like data security or political signaling over
frictionless implementations. Sure you can get secure file synchronization
with rsync and ssh keys, but the average consumer has never even _seen_ a
terminal. I'm sure security and politics are important when selling to other
tech users, but Dropbox is general consumer facing, and they have succeeded at
their task, making flash drives obsolete.

~~~
jasonsync
Agreed, it's just got to work.

We're working on an alternative: [https://www.sync.com/your-
privacy/](https://www.sync.com/your-privacy/)

~~~
aboodman
I understand what you mean by "zero knowledge", but it bothers me when
companies say things like "we can't access your data because it's encrypted
client-side".

If the service provider controls the code in the client (as you do), the fact
is the service provider definitely _can_ access the data, you're just choosing
not to.

I don't think there is much difference between encrypting client-side when you
control the client, and encrypting server-side before storage. Either way you
have encryption-at-rest.

~~~
angry_octet
There is a difference, and its about how the data is going to leak out. If the
access can only happen via a key stored on the client, the client somehow has
to supply that to the attacker (whether an official attacker or not). If every
user's key and data are stored on the server then a compromise of every (or
any) user becomes much more feasible. There isn't really a problem of data at
rest being stolen (except for laptops/cell phones/usb sticks), it is stolen
while live.

Overall though I would agree that you can't trust it much, because some code
is downloaded from the server and then you trust that code (which can
communicate with the server) with the key... Perhaps if it was in a local
sandbox whose policies were enforced in a browser pref, or there was taint
analysis applied to sensitive local data.

In years to come people will snicker at how wide open and insecure things were
back in 201x.

~~~
aboodman
If you store the keys, sure, that's less secure for sure.

But just because you encrypt server side doesn't mean you store keys.

What's the difference between:

    
    
      1. Get key from user on client
      2. Encrypt on client
      3. Discard key
      4. Discard unencrypted data
      5. Send encrypted data to server
      6. Store encrypted data
    

and:

    
    
      1. Get key from user on client
      2. Send key and data to server over SSL
      3. Encrypt on server in response handler
      4. Discard key
      5. Discard unencrypted data
      6. Store encrypted data
    

There are some differences, but I don't think it's clear which one is
"better". I think it would depend on the details.

Big picture: either way the developer sees the key and the unencrypted data.
Either way, you are completely trusting the competence of the developer at
implementing this scheme, and their trustworthiness with the key and
unencrypted data.

There is no such thing as "host-proof" encryption as long as the client is
provided by the host.

------
azinman2
Nothing can be concluded from this data as is. It's by usage on their
platform.

A totally different way to read this would be Dropbox needs the most help from
3rd parties. Another would be that Dropbox is the platform that people build
for the most.

------
danatkinson
I'm struggling to understand why. It has a very poor business model, security
issues and the storage for the price just doesn't add up. Google Drive or
iCloud are far easier to set up, cheaper, and has oodles more space.

~~~
chickenbane
Dropbox is currently indispensable for iOS users. Most iOS people I know use
Dropbox as the clunky-but-works app-to-app sharing mechanism. Dropbox is not
as popular on Android because apps can integrate more naturally.

iCloud may be easier and is the probable successor, but Apple has only
recently gotten its cloud game together and its free option is only 5GB.

Eventually the platforms are going to make using a third party obsolete
(arguably already so on Android) so I predict we're at peak Dropbox usage.
Especially considering Google's new Pixel phones will store all photos at full
resolution for free, I'm sure Apple will at least have to increase their free
storage tier.

~~~
0xffff2
I'm confused by your comment... I'm a recent convert to iOS from Windows
Phone, and I've just kept on using OneDrive for my documents. I'm not even
sure what "app-to-app sharing" means. Dropbox definitely isn't indispensable
to me.

~~~
kuschku
For example, creating a file in one app, editing it in another app, sending it
to a third app to upload somewhere else.

That's hard to do without a filesystem or proper Intents.

iOS has neither, so people use Dropbox as filesystem.

------
clumsysmurf
I hope on Android they support SAF (Storage Access Framework) soon. Since I
don't want to include N cloud SDKs for each point-to-point integration, my app
only supports what SAF does -- and sadly dropbox support is missing.

~~~
droidz
isn't that what cloudrail claims to provide?

------
discodave
Given that Apple was spending in the order of $1 billion to store iCloud data
in AWS I don't think this claim is exactly credible.

Dropbox reportedly had to move 500PB of data off of AWS which at a very naive
$0.03 per GB per month would only be around $180MM per year. $0.03 is probably
higher than the rate dropbox pays per GB but I'm ignoring network
ingress/egress costs.

From those back of the envelope calculations I think it's safe to say that
iCloud is very likely larger, or at least a similar size to Dropbox.

[https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-
infrastr...](https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-
infrastructure/)

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/3045436/data-center-
cloud/app...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/3045436/data-center-cloud/apple-
said-to-move-part-of-cloud-business-from-aws-to-google.html)

~~~
droidz
Maybe. This report seems to just take Dropbox Google Microsoft and Box into
account. But is iCloud really that big when you talk about usage? They store
tons of data but most of it might be just iOS backups which are activated by
default for every user. Consider that usage or not.

~~~
s3r3nity
I think so - and the fact that it's so in the background speaks to how well
the user experience is designed for iCloud. Apple pretty much surreptitiously
hides the backup of contacts, photos, calendars, email (yes - a lot of people
use iCloud mail), and lastly documents. The fact that Apple was so late to the
game on iCloud Drive was that a lot of the shit that the average person
doesn't want to manually back-up and monitor are handled in the background by
Apple ("magically" to use their term.) I personally love Dropbox, but I would
find it a nuisance to manage my contacts, or anything else beyond my documents
and occasional photos backup.

Therefore, regardless of manual input necessary, it should still count as
usage. I imagine a lot of people store backups on Dropbox, and that looks like
it's counted in the article.

Yet, I am kind of surprised that the prevalence of Android software doesn't
correlate to Google Drive market share.

~~~
discodave
Re: Google Drive being less than you expect... Lots of handset makers and
carriers put their own crappy cloud backup software on there and attempt to
push that.

e.g. Verizon has their own cloud storage service.... it's annoying on Android,
not sure if it exists on iOS.

------
joeblau
The way I hear Aaron Levie speak, I would have thought Box had more market
share.

~~~
jseaidou
Box is more enterprise/business focused.

------
hh2222
It would be awesome if they put a simple text editor in their IOS and web app.

------
KayL
dropbox has a better desktop client to share stuff. It makes the difference to
end users. But it's slow sync outside US.

