Monday, July 10, 2006 9:40 PM/EST

Drive Time: Microsoft Live Drive vs. Google GDrive

Update: The folks at LiveSide provide some more details on Microsoft's Live Drive and on something called Project M, which will apparently provide a single GUI to access any of your data from the Web to your desktop and other devices.

The GDrive rumor mill got a big turn today when a blogger stumbled upon code for Google's file storage service, code-named "Platypus (GDrive)."

According to the discovered Web page, Google's GDrive will be available for Macs, PCs and Linux machines. The software, ostensibly a downloadable application that will store files and upload them to a secure Web site, will include backup capabilities, a synchronization feature, secure access via a separate Web site and collaboration features.

There's no word on when GDrive may debut, though some observers have speculated it won't debut until 2007, if not later.

But while rumor and speculation swirls in the blogosphere and Google remains silent, Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie already publicly acknowledged plans for Microsoft's own online file storage solution back in April.

That service, called Live Drive, will take advantage of Microsoft's "huge server farms" to store all types of files, including audio and video, and allow that content to be "accessible from anywhere, on any device."

No word on when Live Drive will debut either. But Microsoft has been eyeing the storage space for at least two years. In 2004, Microsoft was rumored to be working on a hosted backup-and-restore service. That service was originally supposed to debut in 2005.

Microsoft and Google aren't the only Internet companies working on online file storage. Earlier this year, Amazon announced Amazon S3, or Simple Storage Service. But whereas GDrive and Live Drive seem to be consumer-focused applications, S3 is primarily a developer's tool.
The online storage space is also peppered with several smaller companies, such as XDrive and Strongspace.

Comments (13)

John R. :

Call me a cynic, but why in the world would anyone trust their files to any company over which you have absolutely no control?

Posted by John R. | July 11, 2006 7:55 PM

Steve Bryant :

Y'know, I've been asking myself that same question ever since Windows 3.0. But I kid. I think the majority of people have long been willing to give up security for convenience.

Posted by Steve Bryant | July 11, 2006 11:31 PM

ERibner :

Wouldn't it be possible to encrypt your file before uploading them to one of these services, so that they were protected from unwanted access by the company who provides the service (or some government agency with a FISA warrant)?

Posted by ERibner | July 12, 2006 6:35 PM

Charley Parker :

Keeping an encrypted backup makes sense, but I can't see anyone trusting an external party with their original files, encrypted or not.

Posted by Charley Parker | July 13, 2006 10:16 PM

Vincent :

I agree, online storage of secured files is debatable. I guess we can use it to store files that could be viewed by public which simply hogs our disk space.

Posted by Vincent | July 14, 2006 1:08 AM

Google Watch :

Google's Q2 earnings call takes place this Thursday at 1:30pm PST. So, in the grand tradition of IBM's football ads, we're asking you, our friendly neighborhood readers, to make the call.

Posted by Google Watch | July 17, 2006 2:02 PM

Google Watch :

Google's Q2 earnings call takes place this Thursday at 1:30pm PST. So, in the grand tradition of IBM's football ads, we're asking you, our friendly neighborhood readers, to make the call.

Posted by Google Watch | July 17, 2006 2:18 PM

Google Watch :