Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Cloud Data Storage The Almighty Buck IT

1GB of Google Drive Storage Now Costs Only $0.02 Per Month 335

Posted by timothy
from the even-I-can-do-that-math dept.
SmartAboutThings writes "Up until today, I always had the impression that cloud storage was pretty expensive and I'm sure that many will agree with me. It's a good thing that some bright minds over at Google have the same impressions as they now have drastically discounted the monthly storage plans on Google Drive. The new monthly storage plans and their previous prices are as follows: $1.99 for 100GB (previously $4.99), $9.99 for 1TB (previously $49.99), and $99.99 for 10TB.The 2 dollar plan per month means that the price for a gigabyte gets down to an incredibly low price of only two cents per month."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1GB of Google Drive Storage Now Costs Only $0.02 Per Month

Comments Filter:
  • by ravenlord_hun (2715033) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @01:41PM (#46475527)
    ...with the company that specializes in data mining!

    I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
    • by alen (225700) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @01:45PM (#46475577)

      OMG, google will know where i've taken all the photos of my kids

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by noh8rz10 (2716597)

        marked as funny but... yes. they will connect your face to your kids face, and add you to the network of people and relationships along with facial recognition, age and place. welcome to the panopticon, only $0.02 per GB.

        • by Wycliffe (116160)

          So just encrypt it before you upload it. problem solved. If I were to use it, I would probably use it for
          archiving. I would prefer rsync but for the average person it would probably be enough to just upload
          a zip file of last year's photos. It would be easy enough to encrypt it while you were zipping it.

    • by tiberus (258517) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @01:48PM (#46475619)
      Ever get the feeling Google should be paying us $.02/month per gigabyte, just sayin'
      • by mlw4428 (1029576)
        No. You're not forced to use them.
      • by JMJimmy (2036122) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:11PM (#46475851)

        Seriously. This "article" reads more like an ad. $120/year for 1 TB is more than 9 times what I'd pay for 5 years of a 1 TB internal SATA.

        • by rudy_wayne (414635) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:21PM (#46475955)

          Seriously. This "article" reads more like an ad. $120/year for 1 TB is more than 9 times what I'd pay for 5 years of a 1 TB internal SATA.

          There are several problems with the whole "cloud" thing:

          - I can buy a few terabytes of local storage for the same or less than paying Google
          - Google constantly changes things (features, terms of service, etc) and if you don't like it, tough shit
          - Encrypted or not, you have no control over your own data, they do
          - ISPs severely throttle upload speeds. Getting a few terabytes into the cloud will take a really long time

          • by Random2 (1412773)
            .... maybe that's the drive behind google fiber? Open a way for them to actually make cloud services possible by bypassing ISP throttling?
          • by CCarrot (1562079) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @03:02PM (#46476449)

            Seriously. This "article" reads more like an ad. $120/year for 1 TB is more than 9 times what I'd pay for 5 years of a 1 TB internal SATA.

            There are several problems with the whole "cloud" thing:

            - I can buy a few terabytes of local storage for the same or less than paying Google
            - Google constantly changes things (features, terms of service, etc) and if you don't like it, tough shit
            - Encrypted or not, you have no control over your own data, they do
            - ISPs severely throttle upload speeds. Getting a few terabytes into the cloud will take a really long time

            Ah, if only...

            Unfortunately, the biggest problem with Google Drive is that they don't provide any upload throttling at all [google.com].

            So...post a folder of pictures to your drive account, then go do something else for a couple of hours, because your internet is useless until Google's done hogging all of your bandwidth...funny, DropBox had this figured out right from the start, yet after over two years of customer complaints, Google still hasn't figured out how to implement this.

        • by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:26PM (#46476017) Homepage

          And when that 1TB drive fails?

          Cloud storage usually comes with a ridiculously high durability. S3 offers 99.999999999% over the course of a year. Your 1TB drive wont.

          • by JMJimmy (2036122)

            I can pickup a 1 TB drive right now for ~$60 which means I could afford 2 of them at Google's prices. Instead of 1 year of service I can expect 5 years out of a SATA drive typically. So if nothing goes wrong, I've saved myself $480, if something does go wrong with both drives, I've saved myself $360.

          • by Artraze (600366)

            Ridiculously high is right.... 11 nines uptime works out to be less than a millisecond per year. At that level if you're going to need to specify allowable ping times.

            In reality, Google only offers 99.9% per month (99% for "reduced availability", I'm not sure what these prices are for) and the value of the guarantee is pathetic: they credit (not even refund) you a maximum of half your bill that month if availability is =95%. They could be down a full day and only knock 25% of you bill next month. That ca

        • by mlts (1038732)

          Cloud storage is another type of media with distinct advantages/disadvantages. Yes, that 1TB HDD is about $75, but items stored on a cloud service can be accessed anywhere, and there is less chance of a single drive failure taking your stuff with it. Of course, cloud drives are vulnerable to malware doing a delete (which likely can't be restored), so long term archival media is always needed, preferably offline items, or perhaps something like Amazon Glacier.

    • by Aighearach (97333)

      The main use case is not for private data. Private data is likely to fit into their free plan. This is for businesses who are using google services already, and want to share a lot of data "in the cloud."

    • Good luck data mining my TrueCrypt containers ...

      • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:28PM (#46476047)

        I'm worst than that, I make randomly-written files, compress them to ZIP, compress them again in RAR, put that inside a GZ, ROT13 the whole thing and then encrypt it.

        And for the cherry on top, I name the file "confidential_data.dmg" before uploading it.

      • Just write them onto tape, and wait a few years until GPUs are even better at cracking or a bug has been found in TrueCrypt (remember, the first audit is only starting now).
    • If they can mine my TrueCrypt container, then they're doing something amazing.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    And you can use it anywhere. And it has USB 3.0 speed. And it won't be data mined by Google.

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      And get another one to back it up, and perform your own backups regularly, which of course has an opportunity cost of zero. :/

      I've got 4-5TB of movies, music, and photos. I'm not ready to pay $50/mo for universal access and backups.

      ...but it's getting close to affordable.

      • by MightyYar (622222)

        Agreed. It's still not cheap enough to move my media to, but it sure beats Dropbox on price.

      • by z4ce (67861)

        You could get Crashplan or Backblaze and back it all up for between $4 and $5 a month.

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Except that many phones don't support plugging in USB drives. Come to think of it, a lot of tablets don't either.
      • by vux984 (928602)

        For slightly more you can get consumer NAS stuff. WD Live NAS drives for storing 1TB aren't much more than the USB versions.

        And they even have phone/tablet apps for accessing them.

        • by gmack (197796)

          I already have a 2 TB nas stuffed with movies bit this has the advantage that it is off site.

          If your house burns down your NAS goes with it. At least this way I have off site recovery.

          • by vux984 (928602)

            If your house burns down your NAS goes with it.

            My family members have a few nas drives scattered around, and we've got ecnrypted folders on eachothers, with a few GB of crucial data that are in sync.

            We also mirror our digital family / vacation photos in folders any of us can access.

    • And you can use it anywhere. And it has USB 3.0 speed. And it won't be data mined by Google.

      If you have a fire or flooding and you're not keeping the backup at an offsite location, you've also lost all your data.

    • Sure. But on the other hand, without extra effort that 1TB external is subject to the same hazards that the PC it's sitting next to is. Plus *I* have to monitor and replace that 1TB on a regular basis.

      There's more to backup strategy that just "copy it to an external drive and hope".

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @01:44PM (#46475569)

    How much does it cost you to get that terabytes worth of data from your local computer to Google Drive?

    • Startup idea, GoogleDrive bittorrent client. Downloads stuff directly into Drive, then add streaming service for GoogleDrive.

      • Bittorrent is only going to make a difference if multiple people want to download /your/ data at the same time.
      • If I have a TB of data to move, a bittorrent client doesn't reduce the amount of data I have to send upstream. What forced for seeded warez doesn't work for unseeded personal files.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, 2014 @01:44PM (#46475573)

    I'm curious, how much does it cost to run a Slashvertisement like this? I'm putting together a marketing plan and want to see if it fits within my budget.

  • I've always been wondering why no Google-equivalent (or Facebook, or Twitter, or Amazon, for that matter) came out of Europe. Not every one is comfortable storing personal or business data on servers in the US.
    • by ledow (319597)

      Dunno about anyone else, but Google and Bing in the UK both provide data protection guarantees in line with EU data directives (or else a lot of places wouldn't be able to use them).

      I've put Google Apps for Education into several schools, and that's pretty much their first concern - and the first one to be laid to rest, at least on paper...

      • at least on paper...

        And therin lies the problem, if a megacorp whose headquarters are in the US is given the choice between handing the data over to the US government (and hence breaking EU law but probablly not being punished for it since the EU government won't know it happened) or refusing to hand the data over and getting punished by the US governemnent for doing so which do you think they will choose?

    • by tero (39203)

      There is - F-Secure has a cloud solution called Younited. http://www.younited.com/ [younited.com]

    • Are you worried about the NSA? 'Cause here in the states they pretend like they need a reason to gather data. Snooping data in non-US countries is their raison d'etre.

  • by cb123 (1530513) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @01:48PM (#46475623)

    A 4TB drive is under 200 USD from several vendors. That is only $.05/GB. So, at 0.24/yr. This is 5..10X more expensive than commercial off the shelf home drive space assuming you have to buy a new drive every 1-2 years. That time figure is pretty conservative.

    So, yeah, you maybe cloud storage gives you some replication, and the syncing of that replication costs some amount of money for bandwidth. How much extra that reliability costs really depends on the data dynamics, though and isn't as easy to estimate.

    Also, 5..10X more is just about the ratio of SSD storage to magnetic disks. SSD is considered "relatively expensive storage" by most people I know.

    • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:05PM (#46475803) Homepage

      Do you think data you upload to a cloud storage provider lives on just one hard disk that is plugged into the wall and that's it?

      While some data centers do rely on more consumer level hardware (vs enterprise)... to help make up for the inherent unreliability of consumer level drives, they will replicate the data across multiple HDDs, in multiple racks, and possibly across multiple datacenters... as well as monitor the underlying bits for bitrot and overall integrity... in addition to sometimes offering backup options of what has been stored.

      And this aside from offering you 24/7 access to the data from anywhere in the world while keeping that HDD and the attached server running (and power consuming) and with a redundant power system available.

      All of these things quickly add up in terms of cost... so yes, two cents/GB is quite inexpensive for cloud storage these days when compared to like offerings.

    • I have a 500GB external that 1GB at this point has cost me less than $0.01/Mo... I more recently got a 3TB on sale for $103 but I'm not sure I would use a cloud storage service for large amount of data just because of the time involved with transferring that much data.

      let's say I buy a 2TB hard drive for $99 each month, after 5 months I have 10TB, and at the end of the year I would have 24TB. That's more than twice the storage space and i don't need to spend $99/mo to keep it.

    • by ThatAblaze (1723456) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:42PM (#46476231)

      You fail to consider the cost of electricity, or the cost of redundancy in case the hard drive crashes.

      • by rnswebx (473058)

        Let's not forget the cost of the computer to plug these drives into. Also forgetting the management time for backups, and whatever offsite mechanism you're using for DR, whether it's just the price of gas to drive to a friend or family, the power at a second facility, safety deposit box, or whatever it is.

        Nobody is saying that you can't do it for cheaper yourself, if you don't place much value on your time. Backing up 1TB at $.02/gb for one year costs $240. A 1TB external drive costs about $70, and we ne

  • "The 2 dollar plan per month means that the price for a gigabyte gets down to an incredibly low price of only two cents per month."

    Translation, please. I must have missed something.

    • by ledow (319597)

      There's a $2 per month plan.

      On that plan, the price per gigabyte works out to $0.02 per month. Because you get 100Gb.

      What's hard about that? Okay, it won't win the Plain English Campaign, but for sure it's not the most obscure thing I've ever read.

      • Yeah, I'm seeing my mistake now. Too much/not enough coffee...

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        But that means the price is $2 for 100 GB. That doesn't mean it's $0.02 for 1 GB, because that option doesn't exist. Otherwise, I'm sure people would opt to pay 20 cents a month for an extra 10 GB. When you go to the gas station and buy gas for $3 a gallon, that's the actual price, because you can buy any quantity of gas you want (within the limits of their supplies and minimum measurements), and pay $3 for a gallon, or less for a fraction of a gallon.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, 2014 @01:49PM (#46475651)

    The NSA has an even better deal. The only price you pay for storage of all of your data is your freedom.

  • ... but for a lot of people, moving the data to and from the storage is what's really going to be costly. It'll be interesting to see how much of that disk space ends up going unused when word gets around about how much users get clobbered with data overage charges by AT&T, et al trying to use the cheap disk space.

    • by DaHat (247651)

      It depends on how you use that space... and how quickly you fill it.

      Sure your ISP may not be happy if over the course of a few days you upload a few hundred gigs to any provider like this... but after that's done, the bandwidth bill stays low as there isn't usually much churn.

      In the case that the amount of data to be uploaded is even larger... some cloud providers have the option to simply mail hard drives directly to the datacenter to import the data directly.

  • You get charged for bandwidth so don't think it's cheap

  • Summary parrots article, saying:

    $1.99 for 100GB (previously $4.99), $9.99 for 1TB (previously $49.99), and $99.99 for 10TB.The 2 dollar plan per month means that the price for a gigabyte gets down to an incredibly low price of only two cents per month.

    While it's true that the 2-dollar plan per month are $0.02 per month, the other plans are only $0.01 per month. Failing to mention this is bad math.

    Here is a table of prices:

    $2 / 100 GB / month ==> $0.02 / month
    $10 / 1 TB / month ==> $0.01 / month
    $100 / 10 TB / month ==> $0.02 / month

    (Yes, I know it's technically $1.99 and not $2.00, but let's face it... prices ending in ".99" are retarded.)

    • $100 / 10 TB / month ==> $0.02 / month

      Annnndd.... I can't type today.

      (Why the hell doesn't Slashdot let us edit our articles to correct typos after posting?)

  • Amazon Glacier (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hawguy (1600213) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:11PM (#46475853)

    If you're looking for long-term archival storage, Amazon Glacier [amazon.com] is a pretty good deal at a $0.01/GB. I backed a few hundred GB's of data there and it's only costing me a few dollars/month. Restores will cost money, but if my house burns down and I lose my NAS + backups, I won't mind paying them a few hundred dollars to restore my data to a hard drive and ship it to me [amazon.com]. Does Google Drive provide a way to ship your data on a hard drive? It would take me days or weeks to download data over my currrent internet connection (assuming I don't hit my ISP's data cap)

    • This actually starts looking a lot better if you're near the TB+ mark. At 1TB, it costs the same as glacier ($0.01/GB) with no bandwidth charges and instant, sync access.

      The restore data is a nice feature, but for a few hundred dollars you can almost certainly negotiate access to get your data back that quickly from someone (vs having someone else queue you up, copy to disk, and then ship). Most big cable operators have 100Mb connections now. I don't know this for a fact, but I have this suspicion that if I

  • Why do I get the feeling this was a paid ad?

  • I'll stick with SpiderOak [spideroak.com] and TarSnap [tarsnap.com] Fully encrypted, zero knowledge from their end. A bit more money but good peace of mind.
    • by Danathar (267989)

      use encfs with Google Drive and it's just as safe.

      • by grub (11606)
        Yeah encfs is great for live filesystems, no argument there. I meant for archiving and backups of things offsite, should have clarified.
  • Linux client (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dlenmn (145080) on Thursday March 13, 2014 @02:34PM (#46476113) Homepage

    Now, if only they would make a Linux client. Then, I might use it. Until then, Dropbox all the way!

  • I know it is a paid advertisement but still, those prices are NOT incredibly low, they are still significantly more than purchasing your drives and doing it yourself and they are supposedly getting the benefit of scale as well as the benefit of being able to mine and sell your data.

Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys

Working...