In response to a Twitter posting about Google setting limits on its free cloud storage service, Hendrik Fleming in Norway asked, “So please tell me why we should migrate all our software and data to the cloud???”
It’s a question sure to be asked a lot more in the coming year, especially as operating systems themselves move into the cloud. In 2021 we may see the first instances of Microsoft’s virtual Windows 10 desktop computer operating system, where users pay a monthly fee for a cloud-based PC equipped with Office 365. Users would connect to such an environment with their own devices, and businesses would no longer have to deal with updating their Windows computers.
Over the past decade or so, most readers of this column will have signed up for at least one cloud service, be it related to their home computer or to their mobile device.
Mail services such as Hotmail and Gmail were pioneers in this regard. Before they arrived, it was common to have email service through a local internet service provider or perhaps through a university, and the mail was periodically moved onto the user’s home computer for storage. Google famously announced that its Gmail service would offer so much space, online, that you’d never again have to delete an email.
Of course many “free” cloud-based services eventually faltered, and as the field consolidated, the big players eventually realized they had in essence a captive audience. Sure, there would be an outcry if limits were enforced or adopted, there might even be account cancellations, but the fact is that most users would adapt and perhaps even be willing to pay a small fee.
In my own case, I’m quite happy paying a small monthly fee to Google for a total of 104 GB of storage. Every now and then the company sends me a reminder notice that I’m approaching the cap and describes how I’m using that cloud storage. Here’s a recent notification.
I’ve been paying around $2.75 a month for that 100 gigs or so of storage. Google was smart to offer 100 gigs of “free” storage to its Chromebook customers, for a period of a year or so, knowing full well that some would begin to fill up that space. Once the free period came to an end, it was time to pay up or clean out the space. Any of you who’ve had to clean up cloud storage space to get under a cap know it can be an onerous task, and sometimes it’s just easier to pay a small monthly fee.
Google suggests, naturally, that I upgrade to 200 gigs of storage for about $4 a month, or even two terabytes for around $15 a month.
Recently Google’s popular Photos service served notice that it was placing a cap on storage. The cap isn’t at all straightforward, and it depends in part on how photos are stored. In addition, owners of Google Pixel phones are exempt from the fee on photos stored at original quality.
Again, Google sees an opportunity to make money from a service that hitherto has basically been free. We’ve seen this before with one of the earliest cloud services, then Vancouver-based, but now on its third ownership, and that would be the photo service Flickr. When Yahoo, the internet search pioneer that had acquired Flickr from founders Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, fell on hard times, Flickr became a corporate casualty.
Flickr was eventually purchased by SmugMug, and the service was revamped. The free account became limited to 1,000 items, basically a combination of photos and videos adding up to 1,000. Beyond that threshold, users are now required to have a Pro account at a monthly fee of about $8 CDN ($78 as an annual fee), in exchange for unlimited storage.
Look no further than the likes of Adobe and Microsoft for confirmation that cloud-based applications can drive billions in corporate profits. Both companies had expensive standalone software suites (think Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Office) that were central to their respective business models, and both have migrated to subscription-based online suites (Creative Suite in Adobe’s case, Office 365 for Microsoft).
Landline update
In previous columns I’ve made note of the pricing for legacy copper landlines from Telus. Recently I noticed that the price of my own such line had increased despite previous assurances that the cost would remain fixed. I’ve now had that cost increase rescinded. Even better, the new monthly rate has decreased, to $9.62 (taxes included).
It seems that Telus simply decided it would give landline customers an extra service, three-way calling, and then bill them for the add-on, without any request from the subscriber. When pressed, a company representative said it was assumed people would want this and be happy to pay for it. It seems Telus has forgotten the fiasco of negative option billing from a decade or so ago.
Follow me on Facebook (facebook.com/PeterVogelCA), on Twitter (@PeterVogel), or on Instagram (@plvogel)