The Problem With "The Cloud"

It's the going buzzword these days.  Everyone wants to move to this thing called "The Cloud" and apparently - allegedly - all of your storage worries go out the door completely.  In an era where mobile devices are gaining traction and fixed desktops are starting to be less available, it seems a logical evolution.

Only problem is that there is a piece people are missing, and until that piece is in place, "The Cloud" is really vaporware.





Let's start out by understanding storage.  When you are working with electronic information, you have to store it somewhere.  Depending on what that information is (A document, an audio file, a movie file, a picture, etc), the amount of storage it needs will vary widely.  In days long past, an entire computer system could be stored on a disk of a few megabytes.  To put this in some perspective today, if you were to download 20 songs from iTunes or Amazon, you would end up with about the amount of data consumed by the early systems years ago.  A regular research paper would be a fraction of what it is today, and in a lot of cases this storage need has not gone up much.  We take this for granted now, of course, but in those times it was a big deal.  Mind you, these computers were running entire organization operations!

Every device you use must have storage with it.  The amount of storage needed is broken up into 3 basic categories:

1. The system - in other words, the "brain" behind the device;
2. Your files - in other words, whatever you store on the device; and
3. The applications - in other words, what you use on the device, and their data.

For the most part, the more advanced the device the more system and application storage is needed, potentially leaving you with a small amount for your files.  Using phones as an example, if you get a cell phone that claims to have 16GB, you really don't have 16GB for your own use, ever.  Part of it is the system, part are the applications and data.  But even if you had a completely empty device, you still wouldn't have 16GB.  HowToGeek explains this better than I have time to, but in summary, the storage you buy in you device will never the be same as what's made available to you in computer land.

The easy solution to this issue had always been to allow a user to buy a memory card, such as a miniSD, microSD or other type of memory, that they can add to their device to store their own files, and move from device to device as they upgrade.  Unfortunately, this hit a wall, because presently Samsung is the only device manufacturer left that is really sticking with the concept of expanding memory on your own, at least on the mobile side.  On the computer side, the expectation is that you use a USB drive, which works fine but can be a bit of a pain if you need to share photos between a digital camera and your computer.  Nearly every other mobile device manufacturer has embedded memory attached directly to the internal hardware, and they seal the compartment so you can't access it.  The reason for this is that they can make the internal components smaller and make the device thinner; the net effect is that you lose control over this.  Their solution: spend more money for the same device but with more memory.

That's fine, right?  It depends.

Looking at external cards on Amazon.com, you can buy 64GB of storage for around $40-$50.  That's not bad.  There are also lesser prices available.

If I were to price out a 16GB HTC One, 16GB iPhone 5S, 16GB Moto X, or any other high end device with basic memory, it's an investment of (WITHOUT contract) $500-$700.  If I were to buy the 64GB variant of any of those the price swells at least $100, sometimes more.  We also see this with things like Apple's latest MacBooks where if you buy higher storage, the price jumps $150-$300, even though the drive separately might only be $80 or so.

So why the increase?  It has to do with the form factor.  Smaller, embedded, integrated components will always cost more than separate, modular components.  What that means for you as a customer is that you can expect to get ripped off if you want a certain amount of storage for your own files.

And so enters "The Cloud".  The idea here is that you can store your files in a place accessible to any of your devices that have an internet connection, any time, without having to worry about buying embedded storage.  In theory, you don't need removable storage on your device.  You don't need to buy the higher storage cards.  All you have to do is sit back and let your files upload, then stream them down to whatever, whenever, wherever.  A nirvana of freedom.

Except, the same people who are introducing "The Cloud" are also making it not practical, because they're just reaping profit on the back end.  Let's dig into what this means.

• When you buy removable or embedded storage, you pay ONE time.  When you buy cloud storage, you pay continuously for the right to access your storage location.
• Files loaded to cloud storage don't really belong to you anymore.  If the cloud provider gets shut down or otherwise compromised due to no fault of your own, you risk losing your files (see MegaUpload for an example.  There were legitimate users of the product who where significantly impacted by illegitimate users of the product.  All cloud providers have the same risk.)
• Every single cloud provider requires their own software application to access files.  DropBox, Box.net, Amazon Cloud Drive, Google Drive, Microsoft SkyDrive, all of them.  You could argue that Google Drive, SkyDrive, and DropBox provide a web based way to manage files, but they don't make bulk management easy if you don't have their application loaded.  
• Storage available in the cloud providers is consistently free for government access and review.  While all of the major cloud providers offer security when accessing files, the fact the files reside on servers that the government has free access to means you don't have 100% certainty that Big Brother isn't looking at what you store.  This isn't about paranoia, but you also don't want to be labeled a potential terrorist threat because you sent a letter to a friend in Iraq who happens to have a name shared by someone on the scrub list (Patriot Act), or because you stored various photos of different angles of major US military installations, or because you archived some of Edward Snowden's information.
• Files in cloud storage are fair game for providers to sell your information to advertisers.  Google already reads every email that passes through Gmail in order to show you ads and, while not proven, your Google Searches are more than likely sold to others who then send you spam about what you searched on.  There have been many instances I've Googled some TV advertised product only to get messages a day or so later telling me about "this great new product".

But let's set the above aside for a moment, because there's one big reason "The Cloud" isn't viable at this time, and it applies primarily to the US: Internet access.

What?

Yes, internet access.  Because unfortunately, the US is terribly behind in internet access enforcement.  The carriers who hold the keys to connectivity have a stranglehold designed to pad their pockets the more you consume.  In a cloud-based storage world, connectivity should not have limits - because of course, if your critical files are stored in a location that can only be accessed using Internet signals, that means you must always have Internet access no matter where you are.  This isn't the case, and in places it is the case, you're paying out the nose for the privilege.  That's not the way it should be.

If you're at home you probably have a connection that doesn't break down often.  It's likely consistent if not that fast.  That's great.  But what about when you get a call from your lawyer asking for a document and it's in the cloud, and you're driving?  You need access on the move, right?  Well, the carriers are busy trying to charge for access to the mobile pipes and trash the "unlimited" access model.  That harms a cloud transition, because you're then charging people to get to the files they need.  That's not the way things should be going.  People are already paying for the storage, THEN they have to pay for the privilege to get to the storage.

Until we get to a world where "The Cloud" and the connection thereto are ONE CHARGE - a reasonable amount of money per year for unlimited access - and until we can access "The Cloud" without any extra software, drivers, etc. on any operating system, local or mobile..."The Cloud" is always going to be a hindrance rather than an evolution of storage.