[close04]

I think the idea is solid but the reliance on Google (or other provider) might be the weak point. The cloud may be great but still a gamble if you're totally at the whim of a provider that at any point can make changes that leave you out in the rain. And Google is no stranger to this kind of thing.

Dropbox came at a time when people were seeing the downsides of private solutions and the cloud was there to mitigate them. These days people are starting to see the downsides of relying on the cloud and are moving to private solutions.

The main difference is today's "private solution" is likely to be a self-hosted "cloud". So it's not that we're going back in time a decade, it's just choosing a combination of "private" and "cloud" that maximizes the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages.

[RhodesianHunter]

> These days people are starting to see the downsides of relying on the cloud and are moving to private solutions.

All available evidence is contrary to this point.

[close04]

I see more and more people noticing the massive privacy (just an example) implications that many of these solutions bring and they're trying to regain control of their data. This is why I said "people are starting to see". Of course I can't see into the future but there's no reason to believe the trend isn't there at all.

But going back to OP's comment above and the link to the Dropbox topic, a decade ago many were not seeing the move to the cloud as anything more than a gimmick compared to the established private solution, not seeing the trend.

P.S. Just to be clear, by "private solution" I don't mean hosting in your own basement. It's retaining control over your solution even if it is hosted in someone's datacenter.