Google Drive vs. Dropbox, SkyDrive, SugarSync, and others: a cloud sync storage face-off

Does Drive stand a chance against sync and backup veterans?

Google's very own "Loch Ness monster," also known as Google Drive, has finally launched. It's the new face of Google Documents, and it's also Google's oft-rumored Dropbox-killer. It enters a scene crowded with competitors besides Dropbox that let you sync multiple folders, collaborate with friends, and stream data to your mobile device — so how does Drive fare?

We'll take a look at the top apps that let you sync files between all of your devices automatically, share files using password protection, pick which folders you want to sync, and do anything else you might want to do with a syncing app. While our evaluations of each app aren't full-on reviews, they are encapsulations of where each app excels and what makes each unique. Refer to the chart at the bottom of the page for full breakdowns of each application.

Google Drive

While Google Drive isn't much more than a Docs rebranding that syncs to a folder on your computer, it has a few key features that make it worth checking out. First, Drive can open up to 30 kinds of files right inside your browser. Dropbox and a few others open files inside a "web gallery," but Drive opens Photoshop files — even if you don't have Photoshop on your computer. To this extent, Drive creates a QuickLook-esque experience inside your web browser that makes it much easier to thumb through files. Drive also includes an option to turn on OCR text scanning, which means that when you upload images to Drive, Google will scan the images for text and make them searchable (similar to Evernote Premium).

Drive launches on the web, for Mac, Windows, and Android devices today, with iOS support on the way "in the coming weeks." The Android app (which replaces Google Docs) won't stream your content, however, unlike some competitors like Dropbox and SugarSync. Drive comes with 5GB of storage free, with generous upgrade options like $2.49/month for 25GB of extra storage and $4.99/month for 100GB of storage. Pricing: 25GB for $2.49/month; 100GB for $4.99/month; 200GB for $9.99/month; more options from Google.

Dropbox

Dropbox is the go-to solution for syncing files across multiple devices for a reason. It's a no-brainer to use, allows groups to share files with a couple clicks, and offers few settings for you to mess up. Perhaps the app's greatest strength is the API it's built on, which hundreds of developers have used to create apps that utilize Dropbox. It's right up there with Evernote as the most developer-friendly storage/syncing platforms that apps can leverage to help you access your data everywhere. But, Dropbox does have some drawbacks: It offers just 2GB of storage for free, and forces you to keep everything you need synced inside of just one folder (though you can pick which folders you want synced within your Dropbox). Extra storage is also very expensive — Dropbox offers 100GB of storage for $19.99/month, while Drive offers the same amount of storage for $4.99/month. Additionally, it would be pretty futile to try to use Dropbox as a complete backup tool because it would mean that you've have to store everything you want to back up inside your Dropbox folder. Dropbox is ultra-reliable and plugged in to all your favorite apps, but doesn't offer a ton of options. Pricing: 50GB for $9.99/month ($99.99/year); 100GB for $19.99/month ($199.99/year).

SugarSync

SugarSync is perhaps the most well-known alternative to Dropbox, and even comes pre-loaded on all new Lenovo computers and some smartphones (like devices from SoftBank). SugarSync's claim to fame is that it's on just about every platform, gets updated frequently, and lets you micro-manage what you want to sync. For example, SugarSync lets you pick folders all over your computer to sync, then lets you choose whether you want each folder synced to all of your devices, or to just specific devices. Additionally, SugarSync lets you add password protection to files and folders when sharing them publicly, which not all competitors can't brag about. The company's app for iPhone and iPad is also decent (though it's pretty ugly, like the desktop app), and even allows you to stream a whole album of songs in a row from the cloud, unlike Dropbox. Lastly, SugarSync gives you 5GB for free to join. Pricing: 30GB for $4.99/month ($49.99/year); 60GB for $9.99/month ($99.99/year); 100GB for $14.99/month ($149.99/year).

Insync

Insync's motto is "8x cheaper than Dropbox," while providing many of the same features and capabilities. After the Drive launch today, this isn't the case any longer, but Insync is still just as cheap as Drive. Insync uses the free storage you already have as a part of your Google Docs (now Drive) account, which means that for each Google account you have, you get 5GB of free storage. If you want to upgrade, Google's prices are much cheaper than the Amazon AWS prices Dropbox charges for storage upgrades. So anyway, Insync works really well as a Dropbox substitute, syncing without a hitch to your Google Drive account. Each account gets its own folder on your computer, but you can't sync any other folders on your computer unless they are inside an Insync folder.

The first time you open the app, you won't even see an application screen. Instead, you're popped into a Google permissions screen online, an indication of how closely Insync is tied with Google. Once you initiate a sync, all of the Google Docs crap you've ever opened will get downloaded to your computer. One cool feature is that unlike Drive, Insync will automatically convert your files into formats (like .doc) that you can read on your computer. Drive syncs Docs to your computer as web shortcuts. In fact, you might want to use Insync solely as a file manager for your Google Docs files since it lets you drag-and-drop things around between folders (labels in Google Docs). Move files within these folders and the next time you check Google Docs, the file will have switched labels. In the end, Insync is a great solution for syncing files to and from your Google Docs account, but doesn't let you sync much else. Also, the company's mobile apps are in private beta, which means you can't use them just yet. Pricing: 25GB for $2.49/month; 100GB for $4.99/month; 200GB for $9.99/month; more options from Google.

LogMeIn Cubby

Cubby, a brand new product from remote desktop pros LogMeIn, is a hybrid of SugarSync and Dropbox. Cubby operates a lot like Dropbox, but lets you pick folders around your computer to sync like with SugarSync. Besides that, Cubby doesn't offer much in terms of options and customization for syncing to the cloud, but does offer more for users trying to sync files between two desktop computers that are always on. For this kind of scenario, Cubby offers "unlimited peer-to-peer syncing" between computers, assuming both computers stay turned on. If you make changes to a file on one, it will instantly sync to the other. Cubby is ultimately crippled by the fact that it doesn't yet offer a public API for developers, so it can't plug in to any other apps you use. Yet, it shows a ton of potential because of how fast and modern its desktop and web interface are. Pricing: in beta, n/a.

Apple iCloud

iCloud isn't much of a Dropbox competitor, but if all you need synced between your devices are text documents, it can be a pretty seamless solution. Various apps such as Pages and iA Writer have iCloud sync capabilities, saving your work after every keystroke and instantly sending changes to Apple's servers. Once you open up iA Writer or Pages on another Apple device or Mac with OS X Lion, you'll already be working with the most recent version of your document. Additionally, Lion saves versions of your documents locally using Time Machine so you can return to older versions of your document, but only on your machine. While iCloud is a very rudimentary document-syncing solution, it might also be the simplest one to use. And if you need to stream music or videos you've purchased from the cloud, you can do that, too. Pricing: additional 10GB for $20/year; additional 20GB for $40/year; additional 50GB for $100/year.

SkyDrive

SkyDrive is Microsoft's syncing solution, and in our testing, it works very smoothly. SkyDrive starts things off right by offering 7GB of free storage, which is best in class. If you move quickly (and have used SkyDrive before), you can quickly nab 25GB of total free storage space. SkyDrive really excels at syncing documents created using OneNote and other Microsoft Office products like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. SkyDrive creates an experience akin to iCloud, but for Microsoft products — except you can also edit documents in groups like you can with Box or Dropbox. And like with Drive (and Google Docs), you can edit (and create) documents for free within your browser.

SkyDrive also lets you share public links, view-only private links, and view/edit private links, which is nice to have. Unfortunately, there's no sharing yet from the Mac app and you can't download items for offline viewing on all mobile platforms. But as a whole, In the end, SkyDrive makes for an extremely well-rounded entry — especially if you forgot to sync something with it. If your home PC is turned on, you can still access all your files using SkyDrive's "Fetch" feature.Pricing: additional 20GB for $10/year; additional 50GB for $25/year; additonal 100GB for $50/year.

Mozy Stash

Mozy Stash is modeled after Dropbox, which is a good thing, but this also means it doesn't offer any features that make it worth using over the industry leader. But, if you're already a Mozy customer, Stash works. You have one folder that the desktop client (which lives in your menu bar) constantly monitors. If you make changes, these changes are synced to other computers hooked up to Mozy, and to Mozy's mobile apps. But since there's no public API, Stash doesn't hook up to any other apps so you can use it for storage. And while you can access your files through a web app, the interface is exceedingly rudimentary and doesn't even allow you to view files without downloading them. Pricing: 50GB for $5.99/month (one computer); 125GB for $9.99/month (three computers).

SpiderOak

Whereas SugarSync puts sync first and then backup, SpiderOak puts backing up your computer at top priority. Once you pick folders to back up, you can choose one to sync to multiple computers. Except in order to do so, you'll need to designate which folders should correspond with each other on each computer. For example, you need to tell the app that "Folder A" on your laptop (which you've already backed up using SpiderOak) should sync with "Folder B" on your desktop (which you've already backed up using SpiderOak). This means that you can't even finish the setup process until you have access to your other computer again so you can create a sync folder and back it up. Pricing: 100GB for $10/month ($100/year); additional 100GB increments at same price.

AVG LiveKive

If AVG's LiveKive app looks familiar, it's because it is. AVG licensed an entire suite of syncing and backup software from SpiderOak and has rebranded it as its own. This means the sluggish and cumbersome experience is here too, while the mobile app is decent, as we stated about SpiderOak. So what's the draw? AVG's upgrade structure is less expensive than SpiderOak's by a long shot. AVG gives you unlimited storage for $79.99/year, while SpiderOak gives you 100GB for the same price. Also, the Mac version of the app has mysteriously disappeared, so your only desktop option is Windows, for now. Price: 25GB for $49.99/year; 50GB for $59.99/year; "unlimited" (500GB, throttled after that) for $79.99/year.

Wuala by LaCie

Wuala is built by storage veterans LaCie, so they take privacy really seriously. In fact, you can't even access your files through Wuala's website because the company's worried about transmitting data through your browser. Instead, it uses a Java web-app alongside desktop and mobile apps so all encryption takes place on your device. Wuala features a very fleshed out desktop client that lets you share files publicly or privately with just a couple clicks. While Wuala doesn't manage sync folders across computers as well as SugarSync does, it's best in class in terms of offering a great experience on the desktop for syncing or backing up files. Another nice touch is that you can switch off "continuous" sync and switch to backup intervals if you'd like to. Pricing: 20GB for 29€/year; 50GB for 69€/year; 100GB for 119€/year.

Box

Aside from the Dropbox, Box might be the most integrated service since its API is so popular with productivity apps like QuickOffice. In this way, it's easy to integrate Box storage into your workflow — and with sync (offered free, but only to business customers at this point), it becomes even more powerful. There's detailed version-tracking, a feed of every sync and change you've made to a document, elaborate sharing features, and frequently updated and polished apps for just about every platform. Box Sync isn't yet available for consumers, but we'd keep our eyes peeled. Its Google Docs integration combined with tons of collaboration features and sync for consumers would make it a very formidable competitor. But still, like Dropbox, you can only sync with one folder on your computer. Pricing: for personal account, which does not include Box Sync: 25GB for $9.99/month; 50GB for $19.99/month.

Syncplicity

Syncplicity has gone undercover in the desktop sync scene, in part because it's primarily meant for business users. But, it has some interesting features for consumers that make it worth checking out like Google Docs integration and a news feed of activity (like in Box). First off, you can sync folders from anywhere on your computer, but there really aren't any settings to change besides this one — on the desktop, or on the web. Syncplicity ties in to Google Docs to download and sync your data, but it doesn't work as well as with Insync or Drive. One bonus that Syncplicity offers (like Insync) is that you can actually edit documents stored in your Drive and browse versions in the Syncplicity mobile app. A couple things we don't like: the desktop app doesn't have any preferences to change, you can't preview files in the ultra-sluggish web browser view, and you can't add more than two devices to your sync under the company's free tier. In the end, Syncplicity isn't the most well-rounded experience (and isn't pretty, either), but it is a decent app. Pricing: 50GB for $15/month.

Head to head

Liner notes

At the end of the day, Google Drive is exactly what Google fans have been looking for: a place to store all of your Google stuff. It syncs to your computer effortlessly, but Dropbox already does that. So where does it beat Dropbox? Since Drive replaces and builds on Google Docs, it's essentially a full-featured cloud document editing and storage suite. Dropbox is still the champ at syncing since it's so reliable and on so many platforms, but if you're looking for the best way to collaborate with others using online documents, Drive is the way to go. If you're looking for the ability to sync and also backup multiple folders around your computer, SugarSync is head and shoulders above the rest.

No one sync solution is perfect, so we attempted to give a fair shot to every mainstream app we've heard of and could find online. So, we wanted to provide explanations for why two mainstream options were not included in our list. First,JungleDisk was not included primarily because there is no free way to use the service, and we've compared services that you can use free of charge (like Google Drive). The least expensive option is $3/month, which includes 5GB of storage — a lot compared to other services we looked at. Additionally, most of the apps we checked out offer mobile apps that have been updated recently, while JungleDisk's iOS app has not been updated since August 2010, almost two years ago.

Another option we skipped is AeroFS, a very cool new company that lets you "sync" files between computers as long as both computers are turned on. LogMeIn's Cubby provides a similar feature, but also includes traditional "sync to the cloud" capabilities, a baseline feature for our comparison. Thus, AeroFS, which cannot sync your files to "the cloud," was not included.

A third detail we want to mention has to do with the criteria we used to judge these apps. We didn't provide each app with a Verge Score, but did measure them in terms of criteria we came up with, which we submitted to each sync app's parent company. Data from our charts is a combination of points we deduced from using the apps and points we gathered from responses to the criteria we submitted to each company.

Also, a few clarifications:

Multiple folder sync: the ability to sync multiple folders outside of your primary sync folder. For example, SugarSync allows you to pick folders around your computer to sync, while Dropbox does not.

Download to mobile: "pin" files to mobile for offline use on all mobile platforms

Password-protected files: whether links you send out to others can be password-protected or not. Clearly all of these services offer password protection for accessing all of your files.

Bandwidth-throttling: this is a negative attribute, and corresponds to companies that admitted to throttling bandwidth when you upload large amounts of files.

O2 mobile wallet app launches text message payments

The Mobile network O2 has launched a smartphone app that allows users to transfer up to £500 via text message.

It also allows customers to "digitise" their debit and credit cards to speed up purchases from online stores.

The firm also intends to allow users of phones with near-field communication (NFC) chips to make contactless payments in high street shops.                                                                  The app has a range of services, including a money management facility

It is the latest of several firms to charge retailers a transaction fee for making it easier to shop.

The service will be free to consumers at first, but O2 said that it would charge 15p for each money message sent by text at a later date.

The network provider said that more than 100 retailers had agreed to accept payments from the service. They include Debenhams, Comet, Sainsbury's Direct and Tesco Direct.

Users can also benefit from a search facility that compares how much goods cost, the ability to load money onto the app from their debit cards and a "transaction history" that keeps track of what they have spent.

The firm said it had held off introducing contactless payments as only a handful of retailers had installed the necessary systems.

Security risks

James Le Brocq, managing director at O2 Money said: "We believe it will transform the way people manage their finances and spend money."

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for uptake of such technology is fears about security. He noted that all personal details, pin codes, passwords and other financial data were held on remote central servers rather than on the mobile device.

"O2 wallet has been trialled internally for months and has undergone extensive 'stress-testing' with security experts," he added.

"This is, we believe, the safest and most secure way to deliver mobile payment services."

Project Oscar

Eden Zoller, analyst at Ovum, said the service was part of a wider plan.

O2 and its rivals Vodafone and EverythingEverywhere are working on a national mobile payments service - dubbed Project Oscar. They had hoped to have it up and running in time for the London Olympics.

But the project is held up in Brussels, subject to an anti-competitive investigation.

"For O2 if this project is in danger of being stalled or even derailed it make sense to move ahead with a solo initiative," said Ms Zoller.

                                                                               The app can also scan barcodes and search for cheaper products

It is not the first time O2 has experimented with mobile wallets. In 2009 it tested using mobiles as an Oyster card replacement to pay for travel on London's Underground network.

Last summer saw the launch of the UK's first mobile payment service with Orange and Barclaycard teaming up to offer contactless payments in a range of stores, including Pret a Manger, Little Chef and the National Trust.

Juniper Research estimates that one in six mobile devices will be NFC-enabled by 2014.

O2 currently has 200,000 customers with NFC-enabled phones in the UK.

Samsung has announced 1.4GHz Exynos 4 Quad processor for 'next Galaxy smartphone'

Samsung apparently couldn't wait for its big 'Next Galaxy' announcement on May 3rd to give us details on the chip that will power it. Dubbed the "Exynos 4 Quad," the chip will run at 1.4GHz per core and is based on the ARM Cortex A9. Samsung is touting the 32nm High-k Metal Gate technology, power management, and per-core dynamic voltage and frequency scaling. Most importantly for those waiting for the Galaxy SIII, Samsung has also let loose that it will be used on the next Galaxy smartphone:

Already in production, the Exynos 4 Quad is scheduled to be adopted first into Samsung’s next Galaxy smartphone that will officially be announced in May. Samsung’s Exynos 4 Quad is also sampling to other major handset makers.

The Exynos 4 Quad will be pin-to-pin compatible with the Exynos 4 Dual, which Samsung believes will make it easier for manufacturers to make the switch on upcoming phones. It will be capable of full 30fps 1080p video playback and recording, includes an interface for HDMI 1.4 and also an embedded image signal processor interface. Samsung claims the chip will offer double the processor power of its 45nm predecessor while drawing 20 percent less power.

We have exclusively revealed that the next Galaxy would have a quad-core processor with "superlative" benchmarks on April 18th and Samsung itself had teased the chip back in February — so it's not a shocker that the Galaxy SIII will have it. The only real question left is whether or not the LTE version (which we're assuming will be announced) will be powered by the chip.

COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGERY

Computer-generated imagery (CGI) is the application of the field of computer graphics or, more specifically, 3D computer graphics to special effects in art, video games, films, television programs, commercials, simulators and simulation generally, and printed media. The visual scenes may be either dynamic or static.

The term computer animation refers to dynamic CGI rendered as a movie. The term virtual world refers to agent-based, interactive environments.

3D computer graphics software is used to make computer-generated imagery for movies, etc. Recent availability of CGI software and increased computer speeds have allowed individual artists and small companies to produce professional-grade films, games, and fine art from their home computers. This has brought about an Internet subculture with its own set of global celebrities, clichés, and technical vocabulary.

Sundback inventor of ZIP

Gideon Sundback, inventor of zipper, featured in Google doodle

With an innovative zipper doodle, Google is celebrating the 132nd birthday of Gideon Sundback, the electrical engineer responsible for developing the zipper. The doodle shows a large zipper running down the centre of the search engine's homepage and opens to reveal stories around Sundback, who invented the fastening device that revolutionized the clothing industry.

Born on April 24, 1880 in Sweden, Sundback emigrated to the Germany and later to the US to work in several companies.

He invented the first version of zipper not based on the hook-and-eye principle, the Hookless Fastener No. 1 in 1913.Gideon Sundback, inventor of zipper, featured in Google doodle

Now Facebook is available in 8 Indian Languages

Facebook today announced a facility for its users to access the site in eight Indian languages from mobile phones.

NEW DELHI: Social networking websiteFacebook today announced a facility for its users to access the site in eight Indian languages frommobile phones.

This will be rolled out in phases over the next few weeks, it said.

"With over 50 million people in India on Facebook, we want to make sure that everyone has a great Facebook mobile experience regardless of the device that they choose to use," Facebook's Country Growth Manager Kevin D'Souza said in a statement.

With this, Facebook users can access the site by using 'Facebook for Every Phone mobile application' in three national languages - Hindi, Malay and Vietnamese and seven local Indian languages - Gujarati, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Punjabi, Bengali and Marathi.

Earlier, users could access Facebook only in English. The application was originally launched in July 2011 and now works on more than 3600 Java-enabled phones around the world.

India is second largest market for the social networking website after United States. In March, the company said it is experiencing rapid revenue growth in markets such as Brazil and India due to rise in the number of users and increased sales efforts in those markets.

As on December 31, 2011, Facebook had 46 million monthly active users (MAUs) in India which was an increase of 132 per cent from the previous year.

The company currently has more than 800 million monthly active users and over 350 million mobile users worldwide, the statement said.

Facebook, which is in the process of coming up with its Initial Public Offering, recently secured credit deal worth a whopping $ 8 billion from a consortium of banks.

Does computers possess real artificial intelligence

Is that possible to create true artificial intelligence and, if so, how close are we to doing so, asks mathematician Professor Marcus du Sautoy.

This was while I was making my last BBC TV series, The Code, which I bumped into a neuroscientist I knew.

"Have you heard the news about Watson?" he asked me.

I wasn't quite sure what he was referring to. A new release of Sherlock Holmes? I looked confused.

"Watson beat the world champions at Jeopardy last night," he added.

Jeopardy is an American television quiz show which tests general knowledge. But I could not understand why a professor of the brain was interested in it.

But then he revealed that Watson was not a person, but a computer. Watson's triumph, he believed, represented a hugely significant moment for the field of artificial intelligence (AI).

Ever since Alan Turing's seminal paper back in 1950 asking whether machines could ever think, scientists have been striving to create machines that can rival our intelligence.

Trivia challenge

There are a series of challenges that many in the AI community regard as key hurdles that need to be cleared on the way to realising Turing's dream.

And getting a computer to beat the best the world has to offer at the quiz show Jeopardy is one of them.

That may seem a ridiculously trivial goal, but actually at its heart is something the human brain does extremely well.

Take the quiz question: "What element, atomic number 27, can precede 'blue' & 'green'?"

The human brain is able to negotiate natural language and quickly tap into the huge database stored in our memory to retrieve the answer "cobalt".

Computers have become increasingly good at this skill. You just have to think how search engines now seem to know exactly what you are looking for despite minimal input from you.

But tweaking the mathematical algorithms that run these search engines to demolish the world champions of Jeopardy marked the moment when computer intelligence left human intelligence in its wake when it comes to accessing information.

And that is not the first time computers have met a key test of AI. Back in 1999, IBM's supercomputer Deep Blue beat the reigning world chess champion Gary Kasparov.

Requiring deep logical analysis of the implications of each chess move, this was perhaps the easiest of the goals for a computer to achieve. Logical thinking is what a computer does best.

The Turing Test

The benchmark for the success of AI that Turing suggested in his original paper of 1950 was about communication.

If you were talking online with a person and a computer, could you distinguish which was the computer?

Since we can only assess the intelligence of our fellow humans by our interaction with them, if a computer can pass itself off as human, should we then call it intelligent?

There are some very good candidates out there that are getting close to passing The Turing Test, including this one,cleverbot.

Interestingly this hurdle is more and more being regarded by those in the field of AI as a red herring.

Even if a computer passes the test, it does not mean it understands anything of the interaction.

In fact I was recently put through a thought experiment called The Chinese Room devised by philosopher John Searle, which challenges the idea that a machine could ever think.

I was put in a room with an instruction manual which told me an appropriate response to any string of Chinese characters posted into the room.

Although I do not speak Mandarin, it was shown I could have a very convincing discussion with a Mandarin speaker without ever understanding a word of my responses.

The Chinese room problem 

                               

Searle compared the man in "The Chinese Room" to a computer reading a bit of code. I didn't understand the Mandarin so how could a computer be said to understand what it is programmed to do.

It's a powerful argument against the relevance of Turing's test. But then again, what is my mind doing when I'm articulating words now?

Aren't I just following a set of instructions? Could there still be a threshold beyond which we would have to regard the computer as understanding Mandarin?

The Computer vision

Probably the biggest challenge for AI is to match the human ability to process visual information.

Computers are still miles away from getting anywhere near how amazing the human brain is at taking in and interpreting visual images.

Just think about those warped words that you are asked to type when a website wants to confirm it is interacting with a real person rather than an automated attack which could spam the system.

It is a curious reverse-Turing test where the computer is now trying to distinguish between a human and a machine.

Humans are able to unravel the warped-looking letters while a computer is incapable of pulling the mess apart.

It's a striking example of just how bad computers are at processing visuals. It's not just the AI community that regards this as a central challenge in realizing artificial intelligence.   

Given the number of CCTV cameras that are watching our every move, security firms would love to crack this conundrum. Currently they still have to employ humans rather than computers to monitor the images and pick up on any suspicious behavior.

Computers tend to read a picture pixel by pixel and find it hard to integrate the information.

It seems that we are still a long way from creating a machine that can rival the 1.5kg of grey matter between our ears. But we should remember that it did take us millions of years of evolution to realize the extraordinary machine that is our human brain.