Apple’s challenge to Google’s vision: rethinking the cloud

TL;DR: While Google puts all your data in one place, Apple wants to make sure you have of all your files everywhere.

Read on…

The cloud is here to stay, there is little doubt about that. Everyone talks about it, but many misunderstand the reason it’s become such a hot topic. For the most part, the cloud is actually not a feature in itself. At its core it is a means to fix a problem: the multiplication of devices.

Ten years ago, your home or work computer was your only point of access to your data: your documents were stored locally on a hard drive and all was well. The amount of data we managed also wasn’t very large: a few documents and spreadsheets, and that was it. It’s only in the past ten years that we’ve started having digital photos and music, and mp3 players, and phones that can hold our whole lives in their guts. The digitization of everything and the advent of mobile computing are changing he way we relate to our data.

Today, everyone is accessing their “digital life” from many different machines: home and work computers, phones, laptops… All of which need to let us to access our set of personal data (photo, music, documents, and even settings from programs and games). But our systems weren’t built for accessing data across several machines, and this is becoming more and more of an issue.

Enter “the cloud” : a vaguely defined buzz word which essentially means “let’s find a solution online”.

The Google way: going all in
The first and most obvious way to approach the issue is the one that Google and many others have adopted: they create a giant hard drive somewhere on the internet and store your data there. That way, when a program modifies a piece of data, it does so directly on the file that is up there on the server (“in the cloud”). And any other program or device accessing that data will always see the latest and “correct” version, because there is only one version that actually exists. Problem solved!
Except… you need to be online to access anything. More on that later.
NB: I call this approach “the Google way” because Google seems like its biggest champion, but they certainly aren’t the first or only ones using these methods. Also, Google VS Apple sounds better.

The Apple way: the halfway house
With its upcoming iCloud system, Apple is approaching the issue in a very different way (so different in fact that it’s a bit hard to grasp when you’ve been drunk on the “other” vision of what the cloud “is” for so many years). Essentially, they don’t see the cloud as the final destination for your data. Instead, they use it as the conduit that makes sure your data is actually present and up to date locally on all your devices.
With iCloud, if you create  or modify an item on one device, the action is automatically replicated on all of them. That is made possible by near instantaneous updates, coordinated by the iCloud system, and sent over the Internet to all your registered machines. I’m simplifying, but that’s the idea.
In effect, you theoretically end up with the same data on all of your devices.

A clashing of visions
Of course, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. But it seems to me that the most important aspect of it all is that Google’s way is a bit ahead of its time. Indeed, the way we’ve imagined the cloud until now requires you to be online to access anything. And we might have truly online homes now, but we are still a long ways off from a truly online world. Mobility, which represents more and more of the way we access our data, is far from being up to the standards that a truly connected system requires.
There are ways to counter that of course, with pining and caching and such, but the issue of connectivity remains, and  it can make for a frustrating user experience. Thinking “always connected world” today would be like imagining Gmail in 1996: a fantastic service by our current standards of ubiquitous ADSL, but barely useable in a time when you had to pay for each hour spent online, blocking your phone line with you noisy 56.6kbps modem.

Apple’s vision seems to bridge the gap from tomorrow’s hopes to today’s reality: online is central, but local is still the heart of the system. If iCloud works the way it’s supposed to, and your local copies are always up to date everywhere, there is no reason it can’t be the best of both worlds: you work on these local files, and the size efficient updates “sent when the network is available” make the best of the spotty coverage issues that would plague the “online or nothing” methods.
Another advantage is that your data is managed by native applications, which are usually more solid and better designed than web apps. HTML5 is getting better and better, but web apps are still behind in many ways. Again, Google’s way seems designed for the future, where Apple’s way tries to solve the issues of today.

Of disclaimers and pitfalls
All that being said, iCloud is not perfect either. What if I work on a document on a laptop that I can’t sync, but then need to access it from another machine? Worse still, what if you work on one document offline, don’t sync, and make another change on that document elsewhere? I can bet that will create more than one headache in the coming months. And I’m not even going to mention the issue of sharing documents, which seems pretty much impossible to do reliably without one unique version accessible online.
Still, there are answers to these concerns:
- If you’re offline, it’s not like the Google way would allow you to edit these documents anyway. There, no online access means no data access, period.
- Apple is the absolute master of “good enough”, with a side of “ultra convenient and easy to use”. This approach has proven successful time and time again.
- Apple doesn’t seem interested in anything beyond helping you manage your personal set of data. They tie everything to your ID, to the point that it is becoming more and more difficult to use someone else’s device. They want you to have the best possible experience handling your photos, your music, your purchases, and all your personal stuff. In that sense, I’m not certain how interested they are in providing solid collaboration tools if it gets in the way of that “personal life management” philosophy.

Conclusion
Strengths and weaknesses of both systems will be debated for weeks and months to come, with powerful arguments on both sides of the trollish war that is certain to ensue.
Still, trying to understand iCloud is making me realize how frustrating it is to live in a world of “always online” promises before they are actually realized. Thanks to Google and their “always connected” philosophy, we already have incredibly powerful tools to work with. Believe it or not, for all the failings I’m describing here, I’ve been living in the Google ecosystem for years (Gmail, Gdocs, Calendar, contacts…), and certainly some of those do work incredibly well. But I’m starting to believe it is possible that Google’s vision is a bit too forward looking still. Once we live in the “always connected & native-like web apps” world, it’ll make a lot more sense.

For now though, I’m thinking iCloud might turn out to be the perfect middle ground…

NB: It needs to be said somewhere: Apple’s iCloud is certainly borrowing ideas from others. Dropbox or Microsoft’s photo studio, for example, have been doing things for a while that might have inspired the iCloud vision. But repurposing existing buds of ideas into fully formed innovative concepts that “just work” is also one of the things Apple does best. And baking these notions into their operating systems certainly opens up a whole different kind of potential. Some might react negatively to this, the way Apple sometimes incites among tech enthusiasts: “there’s nothing new here, this has been possible with Dropbox for years”. That would be a grave misunderstanding of the extent of Apple’s project. For all the love I bear Dropbox (and I assure you it is very very great), iCloud is a very different beast, with very different implications.
Oh, and Dropbox will be fine by the way, it’s an awesome product that enables things iCloud never will.

-Bonus-
Partly related: also prepare for a whole lot of fun with Apple’s photo stream feature (which sends all the photos you take on your phone to all your other devices, in real time, home computer included). I can’t wait for the first idiot who will take pictures of his “work dinner” (i.e: strip club night out), only to discover that his wife is seeing them pop up on the computer at home. Seriously, the media is going to go crazy with this.
So remember kids: what happens in Vegas… is sent in real time to your computer if you take a picture of it. :)

 

August 15th, 2011
  • http://twitter.com/Guishe Guillermo Silva

    I still don’t quite get it. How is iCloud different from dropbox? What I can gather from your article is that iCloud doesn’t give you the option to access documents online (like on dropbox, for example), but for all other intents and purposes it works pretty much the same. Am I wrong?

  • http://patrickbeja.com/ Patrick

    Yes you are, to an extent: baking it into the OS supercharges what you can do with it and its ease of use. The principle is the same, but the application is completely different (only because Apple is the one actually creating the OS; I’m sure Dropbox would have loved to go that far if they could have).
    Also, Dropbox is seen, for the most part, as a nifty little tool to transfer and share files around. Apple is extending that vision in a way which seems obvious now that we understand it, but that wasn’t really obvious a couple of months ago. If everyone thought of Dropbox as the ultimate system wide syncing philosophy, someone would have done if first.
    Not that iCloud is necessarily going to be a success, but iCloud is to Dropbox what the iPhone was to the idea of smartphones. Yes, the concepts and basis were already here, and it’s not like Apple really created anything completely out of thin air, but the are repurposing and repackaging the technology into something that will focus on user experience. Really, that’s what they always do ; the very seldom create something that didn’t already exist in another form somewhere else…

  • http://twitter.com/Guishe Guillermo Silva

    Ok, so… In a nutshell; what iCloud has to offer is that it’s baked into the OS wich, as you say, can open many possibilities “sync-wise” for the users. However it’s not something entirely new.
    That’s pretty much what I thought, it’s ease of use, integration and some sort of rebranding of existing services.
    I’m digging the idea so far, we’ll see what happens once iOS5 rolls out!

  • Anonymous

    “The truth is in the cloud.”
    -SJ

  • http://patrickbeja.com/ Patrick

    More or less, yes. But we shouldn’t discard the “rebranding” of old things. Windows is basically MacOS, which itself was invented by Xerox at PARC. An iPod is just a prettied-up MP3 player. Facebook is kind of like Friendster, and Google + is a ripoff of Facebook. There are many examples… Basically, a small shift in functionality and user experience is sometimes all it takes to conquer the world.

  • Anonymous

    Hey I can comment here also, without any 140 character restriction.

    Like I said on Twitter, fascinating post, sum up the differences between the two vision quite well.

    Apple is playing partly cloud because they have hardware and machines they can rely on. Communicating between them.

    Google is playing full cloud because except the Android device and the emerging (not so promising) Chromebooks they don’t control hardware. Launches as a full Internet company and always be I think. They plan to replace computer hardware with tomorrow’s web technology. Big bet

    (Hope I wasn’t too fanboyic)

    Anyway, thanks for the blog post, interesting read.

  • http://patrickbeja.com/ Patrick

    It’s a way of seeing it, but I don’t think Google is going full cloud because they don’t have hardware; if they though it could better the user experience, they would. Actually, they might, depending of whether or not iCloud works out.
    I think the reason they went that way was a deep philosophical commitment to the online world. They might realize it doesn’t work on mobile as well as they had hoped though.

    That being said, as you point out, the future is probably all online, so Google is “right” in the long run; the question is, who is “right” today?…

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, you must be right about the reasons why Google is doing full cloud. But I don’t think they are going to change their cloud method based on the success of iCloud, bit risky for them (Or is it just me, too stubborn to accept it)

    It seems like, in the mobile area Apple is playing safely ( and we’re not going to blame them for that) whether as Google technique depends on a lot of factor they don’t control (coverage of 3G network and probably 4G network one day(let’s hope)). So to me Apple is definitely right for now, but tech industry is moving so fast that I rather put my money on something bit ahead of his time.

    Funny here, in this scenario Google sounds like a control freak and Apple the more open guy :)

    PS : Thanks to take the time to read and reply here, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Google Plus and so on. I’m beginning to assume you are a super computery robot :D

  • http://anaershadowynomaly.deviantart.com Farran Lee

    This is annoying.
    Services like Dropbox have offered this functionality for years.
    And if you’re going to argue that Dropbox isn’t ‘baked into the system’ or whatever, then look at Ubuntu One – that’s been doing this for nearly 3 years now.

    In fact, Ubuntu One and Dropbox do it better than Apple’s technique – the data is replicated on every machine, but it is also accessible by downloading the file from Cloud storage.

  • http://patrickbeja.com/ Patrick

    Annoying it might be, but sometimes great functionality isn’t enough to get mass market adoption; user experience is key, and it’s often as simple as not having to install (or understand) how a system works.

    Another example: wouldn’t you say MP3 players had existed for a long time before the iPod came around? Of course they were, but even similar devices never got the success Apple did. It’s not all functionality (although the scroll wheel was a pretty damn awesome tick); sometimes it’s making sure that people actually get a chance to use it, and there, simplicity is key…

  • http://twitter.com/iqbalmmz Mohammad Iqbal

    Okay, so iCloud is as follows:

    Information will be synchronized automatically in real time to apple servers then that synced data will then be pushed to other authorized devices without you having to tinker with settings or file management. Right? 

    I think this iCloud stuff is great and all, but can someone explain to me why this is such a big deal?

    I hear the Dropbox analogies but I think iCloud is closer to Exchange more than anything else. Think about it, all your info being constantly synced OTA live in real time. which is exactly what exchange does.

  • http://patrickbeja.com/ Patrick

    If I’m not mistaken, Exchange is for mail servers, not files. And again these technologies are not system wide ; the true change with iCloud is that you won’t have to worry about setups and settings. In the words of His Jobiness, “it just works”, and that goes a very very very long way…