I do agree that their availability has been less than stellar. We have lots of odd issues with Exchange and SharePoint can be a real damn pain at times.
You need to remember that any “XaaS” arrangement is a services agreement, you are a tenant. Just as you must be prepared to not have a long term affiliation with your apartment, you need to be prepared to split when the landlord gets obnoxious. You have no perpetual rights, and need to plan accordingly.
They even admit that the average is around 5GB. So the 15GB to 5GB seems to be aimed at annoying/hurting average users that are close to or a bit over the limit. And 5GB is trivial to fill with even a moderate amount of photo taking.
And the paid plans are getting nerfed. $1.99 used to be 100GB, now it's 50GB, with no way to increase? How does that make sense? Edit: Ah it's to push people to sign up for Office365 which offers 1TB. I bet someone thought this was an oh-so-clever move.
Well, I guess MS Online/Live/whatever has always been a bit of a mess with zero clear direction.
And downgrading the space for existing users is another terrible move. Good luck telling your users to actually delete photos and documents (not all users are tech-savvy enough to move data between services).
I understand giving things for free is bad for business, but this move is the worst possible response. Killing unlimited? Ok. Downgrading existing users space to iCloud levels? Terrible.
Still, 1 TB for office 365 is a good deal, and with this change i'm more confident it will remain. I have the 30 gb of free onedrive storage mostly filled, and was doubting whether to get a subscription to expand my storage. Now they're giving me one. I feel like that's a good deal.
> Still, 1 TB for office 365 is a good deal, and with this change i'm more confident it will remain.
If you are a student (or have been a university student), you can get MS Office at a very good discount for a 4-year subscription with 60 minute/month Skype credit and 1TB.
> apple pushes hard for people to buy more storage.
But the storage is really cheap for 1 year in the US I literally think that was a steal. They made me to believe it of course, like you said they literally market many users to get more storage.
Another point is that in many cases, a person becomes hooked to a free service for personal use and that affects buying decision for their contacts who are looking for a paid account, or at work for larger accounts where the service provider makes the bulk of the money. I think this move by microsoft will slow down adoption of Office 365.
Many businesses take inputs from employess before adopting new technologies (atleast in tech sector), and imagine a situation where 1 or more employees got cheated by microsoft because of this move and managed to convince their IT dept to go for google apps instead of Office 365.
That Microsoft is having problems with scaling Azure also makes sense of the announcement that they are reducing the free tier storage. If you looked at it from just that they are being abuses by people storing 75tb then reducing the free tier storage does not make sense. However, if they are having issues with the underlying Azure Storage and are wanting to relieve pressure on it, then reducing the amount of storage and the number of accounts because of existing users migrating to other cloud storage providers makes sense.
If you are considering Azure for your cloud provider, consider that their halo internal customer OneDrive decided that Azure Storage did not allow them to fulfill what they promised to their customers and they are being forced to cut back at the cost of a huge customer backlash and loss of goodwill. If Azure Storage cannot be relied upon by their internal customer, how can your company rely on it?
Onedrive is now included on their OS by default, and they make no money on the free users, so given the sheer numbers, it makes financial sense to reduce it. A momentary PR blip, but long term financial savings.
Time and again, they make this mistake. They change names for their services continuously. They should keep all old users on 15GB or whatever was offered, and new users take the 5GB account. That is the correct way to handle this.
First they offer 15GB free space, then they limit it to 5GB.
While I can appreciate that the unlimited service is not provided so that users can store dozens of TB (which may be within the terms and conditions, but is certainly not reasonable) I wonder why it should be users like me, using the service in a responsible manner, that are punished. Reducing the space to 1/6th is certainly not reasonable.
Two issues: My phone photos are not really that important. But it seems time to download them locally and delete them in the cloud. My "real" photos are anyway stored locally on multiple hard disks.
Next: I may regret having said this, but: FUCK YOU, MICROSOFT!
If it's within the terms and conditions, it's reasonable.
If Microsoft promotes unlimited upload, then it should have no limit. If it is not reasonable, then do not promote it.
This is pure marketing. Only a tiny percentage of users does this, and the rest uses less than 1TB. Still you can market that unlimited upload. If that would be unreasonable, then do not promote it.
But then maybe too many users start to upload many terabytes, and then it starts to costs money, and then the promotion budget gets cut, and suddenly they realize it's not going to get better. A new manager steps in, cuts out the stupid idea and there you are, another stupid marketing failure.
You actually got the 30 GB if you activated photo upload anywhere just once. I once installed the OneDrive app on my iPhone, activated photo upload while not having any photos on the device, uninstalled OneDrive immediately and had been enjoying 30 GB of free backup space for Arq ever since without ever uploading a photo.
But I am not amused. Who says they are not changing the rules mid-game again? The next time they'll block applications that generate too much traffic or whatever.
Just pick some limits and stick to them (for existing users).
Same here, and my O365 sub runs out in a month, so Microsoft has just made my decision to switch for me. I was fine with paying $70/year for 1TB of storage (with a welcome, if barely used, Office install). I don't actually need 1TB as I'm barely hitting 30GB with OneDrive right now; 100GB would be plenty of headroom for my needs. But the fact that they are punishing free users as well as those who abused the "unlimited" paid option means they would have no qualms about limiting O365 accounts in the future. I don't need to stress over whether I'll have to change providers one day; I'll just deal with it right now.
I've been toying with a storage instance on Vultr, $5/month for 125GB storage and enough CPU and RAM to install and run OwnCloud, though I've also considered SparkleShare since the majority of what I store is text and images. I think I'm going to spend the rest of my off duty time today working out the better solution and start migrating my OneDrive files.
I have also been skeptical of MS's commitment to OneDrive, in large part due to their marketing of OneDrives storage space as "Unlimited"
I guessed this was some sort of storage service from the name but had no idea who owned it and don't think I had heard of it before today.
(I can recall only one fairy tale with seven dwarves where it was poisoned ;-D
I think any company has the right to change their business model and/or product offerings. The one thing I'm a bit confused about is why are they decreasing their free storage tier and taking away the camera roll bonus? To me that just seems like a really bad PR move. In a similar fashion Box did the same type of thing way back in the day and while that was their right I still won't use them to this day.
I wonder if my 25GB will drop down to 5GB now?
But at the end of the day, there needs to be some limit as you alluded to.
3TB of storage would cost £21/month just to have it sat in Glacier. This isn't too bad, I suppose, but when you then need retrieve it, you're looking at an additional £270.
Your bill is based on your peak retrieval rate multiplied by the number of hours in the month.
But you can retrieve a calculable amount an hour, for free, all month, for however long it takes to get your files back. You could also pay a little bit more, and get them back much after.
You certainly wouldn't want to request all 3TB at once though.(It would be billed spread over four hours, and it'd still be thousands.)
You can request ranges of files, so even if you have massive files, you can still throttle the requests to below a given threshold if you're careful.
At the moment I'd be interested in backing up my NAS boxes, which is only about 36tb raw or 23tb usable space. It's a lot, but nowhere near snowball sizes :)
You can still seed to a private cloud of your own, friends and family, but not to CrashPlan's server.
Frankly I think they should be made to honor it.
 Except maybe SpiderOak, or anything you encrypt yourself before upload.
I bet there is lawsuit somewhere here, as "unlimited" does not mean 100GB or 100TB. It's pretty clear what this word means...
Also they just admitted they know exactly what people store in their cloud (type, content).
[ from the sibling post ]
> they just said they can and do check exactly what is uploaded to each account in complete detail
They have to check because at least they show the proper file type on the online interface :) How would you implement photo and video sharing without looking at the actual files?
Really, I don't want to be too snarky but this has nothing to do with privacy at all. At least try to imagine how could you do this without breaching the privacy of individual users if you were running a service like Google Drive or OneDrive -- I'm sure you will find an easy way. :) Do you really think someone actually looked at the account and added up the sizes of the video files in Excel, then wrote to his manager that 'email@example.com has uploaded the whole Game of Thrones in 4K?'
Figuring out that someone stores 75TB of video files does not. Figuring out that
a small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings
Run a report that selects the top 0.01% of users by total storage used, return % of space per file extension.
The OneDrive client isn't as good as Dropbox unfortunately - for some reason it eats my entire downstream bandwidth when uploading files.
What if you try to lower the priority of OneDrive either by network traffic or processor time to let more important things jump in?
A router of a good quality will prioritise ACKs. Obviously, most routers provided by ISPs are awful.
It's not something that Dropbox has an issue with - not sure if it is coded specifically to avoid that.
Do you have a cite for this claim?
Apple has built a number of giant data centers. They shouldn't need to resell cloud storage.
Also, if you have a Mac (or I believe the PC iCloud app now supports iCloud Photo Library uploads), you can watch your network traffic, and last time I checked it also was connecting to some Amazon/AWS domains.
: Others have also found the same-- http://appinstructor.com/blog/2015/apple-using-amazon-s3-sto...
Use Little Snitch firewall and you will see it.
If I don't build it, I don't trust it, period.
OneDrive is no longer a backup and storage cloud service. It's now a document syncing and sharing service. Hopefully it will be more usable soon as such.
On another note, now it makes perfect sense why they removed virtual file system support on Windows 10. The intention isn't to add capacity to your system, but to mirror files to the cloud.
Removing placeholder files on Windows 10 was a kneecap to users with small SSDs. You may think it makes perfect sense, but again, Microsoft took a unique differentiating feature and threw it down the train. Now there's no upside to using OneDrive over Dropbox/Google Drive.
Post-hoc justify it all you like, OneDrive's management has been a mess this past year. They've seen high-level execs leave, and the confused thinking shows up in their product and service plans.
If that's the premise you're starting with, then you're already wrong.
DropBox 1TB = $9.99/m
GoogleDrive 1TB = $9.99/m
OneDrive 1TB + Office365 = $6.99/m
Wow. This actually is a direct quote from Microsoft. Unbelievable! I'm not sure what's more incredible: the tone of this message, or the fact that noone at MS has thought about this before...
Maybe time to switch to Google Drive?
Yammer? Meh. Besides, they constantly change their UI and confuse their users.
Office itself? LibreOffice is almost able to do everything it can do, and more.
Lync (sorry, "Skype for Business"): There are thousands of chat clients out there.
Having been a (paying, ~250gb) user of sky drive for as long as service has existed, I am upset - I'll still use it, but my recommendation for it as defacto cloud storage for someone needing to send a file is gone.
Most crucial is recent screw ups with office having its own sync engine with one drive-stored files (even if opened locally from onedrive folder) that often creates conflicting upload with default win10 onedrive app.
My family belongs to the Office 365 family plan and I think that we get a good deal for $100/year: 1 terrabyte OndeDrive per user, web versions of office apps, and installable apps if anyone wants those.
Except for content on the web that people and organizations want to share for free (fortunately most of the web!), I believe in a pay for what you use plan. Pay Microsoft and Google for cloud services, pay Netflix/Hulu/HBO-Go for entertainment content, etc.
This is going to be a whole lot of hurt.
And OneDrive is not alone in this. Google Drive and iCloud are also complementary services. I mean, for now you can clearly see who is treating cloud storage seriously by the support they give to their Linux customers. And if you want to vote with your wallets for complementaries, that's fine, but it reduces choice in the marketplace and I think that personal data (think photos, videos, personal projects) is too important to treat with a shitty, complementary free tier whose purpose is to lock you into something.
Google and Amazon had the intelligence of limiting their "unlimited" offers to unencrypted non-raw photos. Google is even using the data to feed their machine learning skynet, so it brings them (and you) value.
Could be worse. They could offer "unlimited" storage, but as the usage increases, the upload rate decreases.
I was a huge fan of Google's products while in College, but once entering the professional life, Microsofts offerings spoke to me in a whole new way.
But this is an incredibly silly move by Microsoft!
But to say Microsoft hasn't had a direction, that might be true. But there was also a me.com and Google Docs / Drive / Google Photos; so they are more interesting in being in the space that the consumer are looking for, rather than making their own way in to the woods by themselves.
No, they don't sell your personal data to a 3rd party, that would be as terrible for them as it is for you. They sell ad placements.
If scanning your data for ad placement is not acceptable, you use can use Google Apps, which is covered by a different agreement. The base price is 4 Euro per month, from there you can get 1TB per month for 8 Euro per month or 100GB for 1.99.
There's a maximum file size. (What is it now? 10 GB?)
20 000 * 10 GB = Microsoft ∞
Maybe there are limits to how many items you can store in a folder as well.
They should secure these pages better, crackers get in and write absurdly suicidal stuff.
(The 'unlimited storage' did not exist either, AFAIK.)
I have 20GB worth files in there, all I have to start moving because Microsoft loves their customers.
Shameless referral link: https://hubic.com/en/offers?referral=WVOVSY (referral adds +5/10/500GB for you, depending on a plan selected)
I don't know how they manage to offer storage at this price point, but I was quite surprised they had even lowered prices some months ago (10TB offer used to be ~10EUR and now the price's half of that).
Either way, git-annex has redundancy. The stuff that's important to me is replicated across multiple storages, so even if one goes down it won't hurt much. And, sure, I advise everyone, whatever technology and storage provider(s) they use to have backup strategy and consider for failures.
I'm gonna do a shameless plug and give my referral link, which should start anybody off with 20GB: https://copy.com?r=fTnUcM.