Replacing Crashplan

I’ve been pretty happy with Crashplan for five years or so, although lately not so much. Obviously, one reason to be unhappy with Crashplan is that they’re no longer supporting the family plan I was using to back up all our Macs. Worse, their quality of service seems to have (understandably) slipped as my plan approaches its termination.

Exhibit 1: my wife bought a new laptop. When she tried to restore files from her old laptop, they were MIA.

So, here we are at a nasty juncture where our supposedly bulletproof fire-and-forget backup system is (a) not working terribly well and (b) shortly going to not work at all.

Possible Crashplan Replacements

The obvious replacement is Carbonite. The problem with Carbonite is that it’s going either (a) be a lot more expensive than Crashplan was (because of our family plan — which is the equivalent of, effectively, n $100/year plans where n is the number of computers you back up; the small business plan works out as being stupidly expensive if you have more than 250GB of data) or (b) require me to do a bunch of work (i.e. set up one computer as the family server, have all the other devices back up to it, and then back it up via Carbonite. So Carbonite will either cost $300 (say) per year or $100 per year but require me to be my own network engineer. Oh, and forget mobile backups.

If I want to do a whole bunch of work I might as well just use Amazon S3. For 2TB of data that’s a mere $46/month. Ouch. I could probably use their cheaper long term storage, but now I’m basically starting my own Crashplan / Dropbox implementation and that sounds kind of like hard work. Forget that.

So, on to the “consumer” options (I’ve tried to pick 2TB plans as this is the absolute minimum I can live with):

  • Dropbox — $99 p.a. 1TB (there is no 2TB plan)
  • Box — $540 p.a. for unlimited (3 computers)
  • Hubic — $60 p.a. 10TB
  • Amazon — $120 p.a. 2TB
  • Google — $240 p.a. 2TB
  • Microsoft — $99 p.a. 5 users, 1TB/user
  • Apple — $120 p.a. 2TB (no Android client)

(Edit: TablePress was a disaster.)

Note that all these services support web browser access, so you can get at your files from any device with a web browser, but I’m talking about file-system integration where you can just save your file in the usual place and it’s seamlessly backed up to the cloud. I should note that Dropbox and Hubic even provide Linux clients. Everyone supports Mac, Windows, and iOS.

At first glance, Hubic looks like the standout value-for-money option. (Hubic is essentially like Dropbox, except it’s run by a gigantic hosting company). The problem is that I’ve found Hubic to have a poor user experience, especially with regard to performance. (My own experience is quite limited — and I’m kind of shocked that my blog post on Dropbox vs. Box vs. Hubic ranks quite high on Google searches for “Hubic Review”.) This may be a result of server location, or simply under-provisioning (10TB is so close to “unlimited” that I imagine it attracts a lot of abusive users).

(Edit: I should mention that Hubic offers both Dropbox-like services and backup services. It also has what looks like a pretty robust API. Also there are advantages to storing your data in France. On the other hand — no 2FA.)

At second glance, Microsoft OneDrive seems like a great deal at 5TB for $100/year. The problem is that it’s 5x 1TB per user, which is effectively 1TB. Still, a great deal if you’re happy with 1TB and want Microsoft Office for your family.

The shock comes at third glance — Apple’s product is competitively priced (cheaper than Dropbox!). It doesn’t support Android (surprise!) but aside from that it’s a great deal, you can share it with your family (with each person having segregated storage), it requires no real configuration and — this is the kicker — it’s smart about mirroring stuff to your devices. Want a 1TB photo library in the cloud? Great. Want it on every one of your family computers? Not so much.

Conclusion

Hubic is the clear winner in terms of price per unit storage. Apple is the clear winner in terms of functionality and comes second in price. When I take into account the fact that I pay Apple $3/month for a lower tier of storage just for convenient mobile backups it’s an even better deal (hooray for Opportunity Cost). After some consideration I’m thinking of doing both. Hubic for volume backup and iCloud for convenience.

I’ll let you know how it works out.

Followup…

I nearly gave up on Hubic. After paying for the 10TB plan I received no response and my account didn’t change… Well, until the next day. Sacré bleu! I’m still a bit concerned that the app hasn’t been updated since 2015, but it seems to work.

Anyway, I’m going to start backing up to Hubic and we’ll see how things go.

 

Further research has shown that there are two more reasonably-priced alternatives to Carbonite, notably iDrive and Backblaze. Backblaze seems very compelling for a single computer ($5/month unlimited; $4 with a two year plan), and not bad for a small number of computers (it works out as roughly the same as Crashplan for 3 computers). iDrive is offering some interesting discounts (and lets you handle any number of computers with one account) but I find the website poor to the point of suspecting the competence of the company.

Google’s New Logo

Google's new logo overlaid with circles (top) and Futura (bottom)
Google’s new logo overlaid with circles (top) and Futura (bottom)

Let me begin by saying that I don’t hate it — and I like it a lot more than the old logo which seems to have been the word “Google” in Times New Roman or whatever browsers showed by default as Serif back in the day. The old logo had the chief virtue of being unpretentious and not looking like, say, Marissa Meyer had devoted a whole weekend to it.

I saw someone claim that the new Google logo was an awesome piece of economy because it could be build entirely from booleans of circles and rectangles. I think that would be pretty cool — and in fact conceptually far more interesting than what it actually is, but you can see at a glance that it’s not so.

The new logo is simply a slightly bespoke version of Futura, a nice, modernist typeface which — in very much the Bauhaus style (which it was inspired by — looks simple and industrial but is actually the product of careful design. Google’s logo is essentially some Futura variant, hand-kerned, with slightly modified glyphs. Much like the subtly rounded corners on iOS7 icons and rounded rectangles.

Many corporate logos are simply examples of slightly customized typography — in this case Google seems to have taken the most common variant of Futura (the default weight of the version bundled with Mac OS X) and tweaked it a bit. Not great, not horrible, and better than Times New Roman. I imagine a lot of designers are incensed either because they’re anti-Google and like to disparage anything it does or they’re pro-Google and would like to see it put a bit of effort into picking a logo.

Google in modified Futura (top) vs. DIN Alternate (bottom)
Google in modified Futura (top) vs. DIN Alternate (bottom)

Personally, I think Google should have picked a more interesting typeface that somehow reflected its values. I would have picked a member of the DIN family (or similar) — a typeface designed first and foremost for legibility while being more attractive (in my opinion) than Futura. Google is, at its heart, a supremely utilitarian company, and I think DIN would deeply reflect this. Futura, with its Bauhaus underpinnings, strikes me as pretentiously faux-utilitarian. It looks geometric at the cost of practicality and legibility, but sacrifices design purity in the interest of aesthetics.

DuckDuckGo vs. Google

DuckDuckGo Bang!

I think it’s safe to say that DuckDuckGo is not quite as good as Google when it comes to search. But it’s not bad at all.

But it’s a lot cleverer than Google. It’s almost as though, rather than working on cloning Facebook, making creepy glasses, or trying to beat Apple by acquihiring a bunch of ex-Apple guys they’ve actually been trying to make a better search engine. To begin with, if you set DDG as your default search engine (on Safari this actually means installing an extension, since Apple doesn’t let you add it the obvious way) your address bar becomes a command line, with special (and very convenient) commands.

For example, if you want to use Google, you simply prefix your search with !g. So there’s that. If you want to use Bing, you can use !b, and !i for Google Image search. If you want to search for something on Amazon it’s !a. Stackoverflow !so. That’s actually enough — right now, DDG wins. Here’s a link to all the bang commands.

Now of course the main argument for DuckDuckGo is that it makes its money comparatively honestly by selling search terms without tracking its users. Well, it claims not to track its users, but even if it does it’s probably advantageous to not have your email, searches, and ad-clicks all being tracked by one entity, right? At least make them work for a living.

Dropbox vs. Box vs. HubiC

Edit: Brain Fart — I seem to have omitted about a paragraph of pertinent information.

I’ll assume you all know what Dropbox is. If you don’t, go get Dropbox now. It’s free and it’s awesome.

The only downside of Dropbox is that if you want more than the 2GB of storage you get for free, it gets more expensive, and the upper limit on how much you can store is (for practical purposes) quite low. Personally, I haven’t found either of these an issue — but thanks to my link on opensourcemac.com, I have a pretty huge “free” account. But it would be awesome to have something like Dropbox that was so big I could just stop managing what I keep on it altogether (of course, this is the problem with stuff that’s free — you waste it).

Box.com has been around about as long as Dropbox (heck, it has an even better domain name, right?) but has been targeted at the enterprise.

hubiC.com (their capitalization) I just found out about via Hacker News. It offers more free storage than Dropbox, but not quite as much as Box, and vastly cheaper paid plans, including about $140/year for 10TB. (I’m not sure how you can actually get 10TB into it, short of using a ZFS or Drobo style multi-disk volume.)

2GB vs 50GB vs 25GB

This is how much storage you get for free.

$100/year for 100GB vs. $10/month for 100GB vs. $13.60/year for 100GB (or $136/month for 10TB)

Edit: I’ve corrected the costs for HubiC.

This is how much it costs for more storage. Box gives you — by far — the most free storage but gets more expensive than Dropbox (while offering various enterprisey features). HubiC is insanely cheaper than both of them. By way of comparison, iCloud costs $20/year for 20GB, so in terms of dollars per unit storage, only HubiC is a better deal. In terms of useful features out of the box, Dropbox support is built into far more programs while iCloud offers useful functionality (notably over-the-air backups of devices and integration with Apple products) to Mac and iOS users that no other platform can (currently) match.

For Android users, the iCloud equivalent is Google Drive, which gives you 15GB free, and costs $60/year for 100GB, making it a bit cheaper (and less useful) than Dropbox.

Mac OS X Integration

All three programs appear as folders in your home directory by default, and stick shortcuts to themselves in Finder’s sidebar. Having installed HubiC and then Box after installing Dropbox, Box was very flaky when first installed. Its installer provided no feedback, and the first few times I tried to launch the application nothing seemed to happen, followed by weird broken delayed launches. Once I’d patiently killed a bunch of Box.app instances and started over it worked well.

Box and Dropbox have similar levels of Finder integration — they indicate the state of files and provide context menu items for sharing links. HubiC appears not to do anything like this, unfortunately.

All three applications provide status menus — those icons that appear in the menubar to the left of the Spotlight magnifying glass. I should note that HubiC’s icon looks like a shapeless blue blob — a blue cloud? — which is an anti-feature. The status menus of all three seem to be perfectly fine and offer decent functionality. Oddly enough, Box and Dropbox no longer keep you apprised of your usage level whereas HubiC does.

Box has one glaring defect — it won’t sync Mac OS X “bundles” (i.e. directories masquerading as files). I have no idea why — they’re just directories. It tells you to zip them up first (gee, how about doing it yourself?)

All three services offer support for all the usual platforms — although I can’t comment on how good any of them are (except the Dropbox client for iOS is decent, and all three work decently in a web browser, although HubiC’s in-browser account management is awful). I cannot yet comment on the security of Box or HubiC. Dropbox offers, and I use, two-factor authentication, and I’m pretty sure HubiC does not (but its website is pretty hard to navigate so maybe it’s there somewhere).

Conclusion

If you just want some free storage and don’t mind not being able to sync bundles then Box is a better deal than Dropbox and it’s probably quite robust given the money behind it. If you’re already using Dropbox and don’t need more storage, Box does not work as well so unless you want its enterprisey features (and you know who you are) you might as well stick with Dropbox. I can’t really comment on HubiC until I’ve exercised it by, saying syncing a buttload of RAW files to it (if I’m going to get more cloud storage, I want enough of it to not need more than one service). If you’re interested, HubiC is a damn good deal for free and it works side-by-side with the others. If it turns out to deliver the goods, I may well end up buying a 10TB plan and switching to it from Crashplan.

AppleTV

Yesterday, 9to5 Mac noticed that Apple had rejigged its online store so as to position AppleTV as a product category. Also interestingly, Lee Clow has apparently hinted that, for the first time since 1984, Apple may be airing a super bowl spot. And then during Apple’s first quarter earnings call, Tim Cook foreshadowed new product categories for 2014. We’ve also had rumors of Apple cutting content deals over the last year that never turned into announcements.

It seems pretty clear that one new product category is going to be AppleTV. And here’s where things get really interesting.

Facts

  • Apple’s online store now treats AppleTV as a product category rather than an accessory.
  • Apple is not currently selling an Apple-branded 4K display (the 4K displays it is selling are from Sharp)
  • Apple’s OS-level support for 4K displays is conspicuously poor (they need to be treated as Retina displays)
  • iOS now provides proper (API) support for bluetooth game controllers
  • The price for high quality 4K displays is about to drop well under $1000
  • The current AppleTV does not support 4K displays
  • The current AppleTV does not support 802.11ac

Opinions

  • The last crop of consoles (Xbox One, PS4, Wii U) had the most anemic rollout (in terms of launch titles) in recent memory
  • The way AppleTV’s remote app works is primitive compared to the way Chromecast can be “handed” a playback task (and Apple knows this)
  • AppleTV currently needs a system update in order to add a new content channel; the tools for managing “apps” in AppleTV are primitive to put it mildly
  • There is already an ecosystem of iOS-compatible controllers and iOS games supporting those controllers
  • 4K displays blur or even erase the line between monitors and TVs

Rumors

  • Apple has bought a Super Bowl spot
  • Nintendo has suggested it is looking at developing titles for mobile platforms
  • Apple has been negotiating content deals with major players (movie studios, etc.) but it has borne no visible fruit as yet

Predictions

  • Apple is at last going to release an AppleTV console (whether it’s called AppleTV or not remains to be seen)
    • It will have access to major new sources of content
    • It will have an App Store
    • It will support Bluetooth controllers
    • It will support the use of other iOS devices as controllers
    • It will be powered by the A7 or something more powerful
    • If it is powered by a new chip (e.g. “A7x”) it will support 4K (the A7 can drive 2K)
    • It will have a shockingly good set of launch titles (how else to explain the lackluster launch titles for all the other consoles?)
    • It will not have a tuner or Cablecard support or any other horrific kludge
    • It may introduce streaming video with ads for content from networks (effectively on-demand playback of licensed content with ads)
    • It will cost $199-399 (I’d predict $199, but Apple might actually sell a range of products with varying storage capacities)
    • The ghastly Apple Remote iOS app will be given a proper overhaul, and work in more of a peer-to-peer manner (and be able to hand off tasks to the AppleTV)
  • An even smaller $99 version which doesn’t play games might continue as AppleTV Nano or some such
  • We’re going to see extensive 4K support across Apple’s product lines over the next 12 months
  • We’re going to see Apple-branded 4K displays (“Retina HD” perhaps?) designed to work seamlessly with all this new stuff