iCloud: Big step for content management, but not for the cloud The glaring feature of Apple's much-vaunted iCloud announcement? It doesn't have much to do with the cloud. At least, not in the usual Google sense of doing everything via the browser with no local storage or apps. In Apple's world, apps still need to reign supreme, or it risks falling well behind its more cloud-aware rivals, …
Moving from local storage of important data to clod-based access is a non-starter for many. What happens if that document you have to submit is exiled on the cloud because you're web connection is down?
Apple's approach - and it's not a unique one, my Orange SPV backed up PIM data to a cloud - is more likely to gain traction with the masses than Google's 'you really can trust us to look after your confidentials' one.
That's why I like Microsoft's approach with Windows Live Mesh - an offline, local copy on your device, automatically synced to an online copy in your SkyDrive. Changes are automatically made and kept in sync across all your devices and the cloud. Then you have access to a local copy when you need it, and also an online copy accessible from anywhere.
Couple this to Google style web apps, like the Office Web Apps suite, to open and edit in the browser, and Microsoft really have a winner in my opinion!
The only shortcoming is music, but then they are betting on Zune Pass and streaming, which may or may not be the best approach. Hopefully, they will offer iCloud style services too, then it is all bases covered!
The article twice mentions music streaming from the cloud. This is the largest misconception about iCloud.
It is all about SYNCing, nothing to do with STREAMing. All iCloud does is ensure all your iDevices (including Macs and PCs) are transparently synchronised. This may include your music, which does not have to be uploaded to iCloud if iTunes Match has a copy of all your tracks. If not, then only those non-matched tracks are uploaded, but ONLY for the purpose of re-synching back to other devices, not for streaming.
They want you to store data and use apps locally, otherwise you would not buy high-capacity iPhones etc, and would not pay for local apps.
To summarise, iCloud keeps your local off-line world in sync; it is not about the on-line use of data or applications.
I use Google Docs quite a bit, but I really like the sound of Apple's approach. I don't know which I'll end up using - perhaps Google Docs still (for the ability to access in a web browser from anywhere, and the sharing).
I'll certainly be using iCloud for all the other stuff though (contacts, photos, calendars etc).
Apple's approach is, I think, more tangible to the average user than the more caveat-laden approach Google has. I'd never want to get a Chromebook, as I don't want to rely on a net connection. It might make sense if you're always in a big city, but if you ever travel abroad, data roaming charges (and availability) varies so much that it'd be impractical to use.
Plus, I can't entirely see what you gain from the Chromebook, except a whole load of compromises. I can see it suits Google down to the ground, but I'm not sure I'd ever convince my mum to use it (or understand it).
The Register has just confused the terms "cloud service" and "thin client"
There is no mandated design pattern for the cloud or what a cloud service has to look like. Apple are using the cloud to offer synchronization services allowing the user to keep more control over his or her data. Google Docs by contrast is fundamentally designed to ensure the structure and content of your documents are visible to Google. They aren't developing it from the good of their hearts, they are developing it because in exchange for using it, they are getting you to sign in to a permissions model where they can target ads at you better because they can see your documents. This has some serious privacy and ethical ramifications.
Over time i believe more and more users will recognize Apple's approach allows the user to retain better control of his / her data. Cult of Mac ran a good article just prior to WWDC saying a reliable source has leaked that Apple will be upgrading Time Casule to work with their cloud solution, so the cloud service can provide you with roaming access direct to your data - but you can retain the data under your own control.
For many people there is immense appeal to Apple's proposed model. Yet again the Register have missed the real story, the legitimate differences of Philosophy and have instead taken a blinkered view of Apple's technology so they have a platform for cynicism. What the Register miss due to their cynicism is that both Google and Apple are sincere in their philosophies. While Apple retains tight product control, they make it consistently subservient to creating a software experience they think the customer will love. So consistently no crapware on new machines nor the equivalent attempt at socially engineering sales as e.g, printer manufacturers do who deliver anti customer printer driver designs like hiding the option to switch off printing in color. The Register consistently attempt to cast Apple in the same mould as these attempts at social engineering for profit, which means they miss the very reason for Apple's success. Apple of course charge and make profit, but the secret to their success is it is always in exchange for what the user feels is their best effort to make something of value. That is a fair exchange.
Personally, though I think Google are sincere, I trust a company less who tells me I can have cake for free, so long as I sign over access to my personal data, than one that is unashamedly a commercial business, who deliver the best goods they are able to design in exchange for a healthy price. The later model to me, is clean and simple and ultimately, by not positioning itself as a free social good (with the string attached that I have to sign over access to my private data), one I feel I can trust more. Many will feel the same way as me and many won't, but Register, try to be a bit more analytical and less cynical.
I like your analysis, and agree with the distinction you make between Google and Apple's philosophies in a historical context. However, in practice I'm not sure the distinction is as great as you make out.
In the case of iCloud, Apple also gains access to all of your data, and I suspect applies the same privacy model as Google. This doesn't have to be the case. If Apple are only interested in synchronisation, there would be nothing stopping them encrypting the data locally before sending it cloudwards so they can't get access (although I'm not sure Music Match could work this way).
With Apple moving into the advertising space too, the trend is likely to be of Apple moving towards Google's model, while at the same time giving the impression that the "healthy price" value proposition aligns exactly with user expectations.
I don't personally use Apple products, so maybe it's not fair to comment, but from a privacy/advertising/ethical perspective I don't see the practical distinction between what Google do and what Apple are doing (e.g. iTunes Genius).
> The glaring feature of Apple's much-vaunted iCloud announcement? It doesn't have much to do with the cloud. At least, not in the usual Google sense of doing everything via the browser with no local storage or apps ..
> Google's Chromebooks are, in their purest form, little more than browser appliances with a layer of Linux underneath Chrome ..
Ubuntu running off a USB drive + Google docs would provide a similar experience with the apps running locally and the data stored online ...
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu
The Cloud is not going to fail, but it's not going to take over the world anytime soon either, and here's why.
1. Bandwidth. In the last 7 days for work I have taken 1400 pictures in RAW format which uses a huge amount of storage. Local storage is cheap, however bandwidth is not cheap, and for me to upload that data will take several weeks if not months. It's not going to happen.
And before someone says "convert RAW to jpegs" - I don't want to.
2. Cost. If I were to put my pictures on the cloud, I have such an amount that someone will charge me a monthly amount. But why would I spend weeks uploading the data, only to be charged $25pm for a drive that will cost me $75 outright? I'm not. I'm not going to put my data on a monthly price plan.
3. Availability. No one seems to understand that no connectivity=no device. Connectivity maybe wonderful in SanFran, and other big cities, but the moment you leave them, and head into the wilds of North Carolina or Switzerland, your access disappears very quickly. You are left with a device that can't do anything.....
===
The whole cloud concept is a way of various companies to extract a monthly amount from the user, rather than the standard model of a user buying a machine and software outright.
So Apple have done this correctly, they are using the cloud to sync devices, which is the perfect application for it.
You missed the point. "Cloud + cache" is not the same as "Cloud + local copy." The former abstracts the content completely, at the cost of removing direct access to it and adding full dependency on the remote service. The latter is an add-on service to content produced and stored locally, where the user gets to manipulate it directly in any of his supported devices.
Google's approach is designed to exact a monthly rent of the service, be it in cash or ad impressions. Apple's approach allows users to keep their documents, and offers the *optional* additional service of automatic synchronization.
-dZ.
This is the one area that I can't get my head around, and I don't really care for.
For Apple to go to all the trouble of lauding the Match service - upload your music in minutes not weeks - and then to tell us that iCloud will push our pictures too... well, that's just silly considering a even dozen happy-snap 5mp res pictures can easily weigh in more than an album of music - nevermind 15mp+ RAWs.
Now, pushing thumbnails instead of full images, with a metalink to the computer/device that hosts the picture and the ability to collect selected pics I want into one place...whether 3G or WiFi... that'd be more interesting and practical.
Internet bandwidth is still an issue. The cloud promises access to all your files from any device when stored in the cloud. Sounds good in theory, but today users have tons of content, and the size and volume of media will only grow. Making the cloud your digital hub is only practical if you have limited number of contents. I think solutions like Polkast from http://www.polkast.com are taking the next step....
They believe for most of us PCs are our digital hubs. (Where else could we store our media and files cost effectively?) That is why I was so excited recently when I discovered polkast that turn your PCs to your personal cloud. No need to upload or Sync and wait. Polkast lets your tablet or smart phone access all the files on your PC from anywhere. It works with my android too. It's very fast when the devices are on the same network.
Why take round trip to the cloud unnecessarily when your PC and mobile devices are next to each other?
Steve Jobs, "... iCloud automatically uploads it, stores it, and pushes it ..." with Polkast is just "Get it." summarize it all.
I think it is a great complementary and alternative solution to what available out there.
and mobile devices don't have 100% network connectivity. We catch trains, go through areas of poor reception, or travel to countries where our data roaming is expensive. There's lots of reasons why having a local app that minimizes communication with remote servers makes sense.
Google's web-based model works wonderfully well on the desktop where I have effectively 100% uptime on effectively limitless bandwidth - but I'll take Apple's cloud as data repository for handheld, thanks.
I started IT early enough to still have worked with RS232 connected VAX terminals hanging off seriously unreliable MUXes. I know the joy of having all your processing elsewhere, and the fun of lacking bandwidth because it was month end (so everyone was online, also leading to licenses being maxed out.
No thanks, I *like* a local cache.
With all this zeal for the cloud lately I am amazed that the pundits have failed to recognize the major difference in philosophies of user still relates to what is being accomplished. If your average file is a word doc or excel spreadsheet then the cloud is great cause your files are tiny, but if your average file is and Adobe PSD or an uncompressed 1080p video file then the cloud is useless to you for anything other than distribution of a final product.
I manage the infrastructure of a design firm and have been asked many times about "moving our data to the cloud." Our largest customer is a three letter server maker who pushes the cloud so our partners think their getting left behind if we don't follow the marketing messages we make for our client. Unfortunately when your company has a 400-500GB/day change rate on your SAN you are not going to work in the cloud because you can't get your data to and from it fast enough to do your work.
One of the primary reasons that Apple's cloud isn't really a cloud, is because the typical Apple customer generates too much data (designers, video editors, musicians, etc...) to effectively build a workable solution. Apple's "cloud" is an answer to a problem of getting a limited amount of content to all of your devices. Notice that Apple isn't telling businesses to use this cloud, it is all about consumer services.
I am very saddened by the seemingly quick death happening at what used to be quality tech oriented sites like The Register and Ars Technica.
macentric
As stated in the article...
""Google views the cloud as the central repository of apps, content and service intelligence into which device or browser can tap; Apple sees the cloud as more of way station between the devices it sells and the software it and its close partners have developed, to the exclusion of all others.""
Google want to search everything you have and display ads based on it and Apple wants to sell you lots of hardware and hope that by allow automatic device syncing they can sell you one of everything. Two different business models, two different approaches. Now if Google's offering was based around encrypted data whereby you hold the key then that may be something, but then they couldn't search it could they?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
