File Storage service launched

[Liz]

Yes and no, respectively - it's good for multiple years for EXISTING subscriptions (but not lifetime ), but no file sharing, as previously explained.

Liz

[oysterquartz]

Liz,

What's the rationale for no file sharing? If you look at all of the successful implementations (look at the "expensive" but very successful .Mac for example), they all allow a degree of sharing.

By that I mean either the ability to view and share photos, etc. Otherwise, the functionality is really pretty limited. Other solutions also allow you to configure "guest" access to allow people to share you files (if not view them externally).

Any plans to implement this in the future?

BTW, the new price of $19.95 to existing terms is seductive and a good move by Runbox!

[COUME]

yep, and does that also mean that when you upgrade you use the same space than your email account??

The doc file about the price is not that clear or perhaps should I say, I do not understand it...

Ludo

[COUME]

Originally posted by Liz
Yes and no, respectively - it's good for multiple years for EXISTING subscriptions (but not lifetime ), but no file sharing, as previously explained.

Liz

But does that means that at the end of my account, I renew it for 3 years... I will be able at this time to upgrade my account and have the file manager for 3 years at a price of 19.95$ ??

Ludo

[Liz]

It's a question of bandwidth really - if you let people link to mp3's on their websites, where the files reside with us, we could get both legal AND bandwidth headaches galore.. Not saying no degree of sharing will ever be possible though. But we will need more quota specifications for that. Also, files and mail use the same database now.

Liz

[carverrn]

I'm sorry Liz ... I'm getting a bit confused about the pricing and the file space

If I currently have a 3 year subscription, is the 100Meg File Storage going to cost me $19.95 per year for the next 3 years or just $19.95 until the end of my 3 year subscription?

Also, when you said "files and mail use the same database now" do you mean that the File Storage will use the same space as your email? So that my total storage is shared between emails and files?

Rich

[oysterquartz]

Originally posted by Liz
It's a question of bandwidth really - if you let people link to mp3's on their websites, where the files reside with us, we could get both legal AND bandwidth headaches galore.. Not saying no degree of sharing will ever be possible though. But we will need more quota specifications for that. Also, files and mail use the same database now.

Liz

I think that without some amount of sharing, the utility of File Storage is compromised (at least for me). I can't think of too many other services which _don't_ allow sharing.

Can't you just enforce a bandwidth quota (say on the files side) and allow sharing?

Take a look at www.mac.com. Expensive to be sure, but then again I've talked to subscribers and they think the value is great at $99.99 per year since they can seemlessly share, host, etc., images and content, do backups, and handle their mail.

[oysterquartz]

Originally posted by carverrn
I'm sorry Liz ... I'm getting a bit confused about the pricing and the file space

If I currently have a 3 year subscription, is the 100Meg File Storage going to cost me $19.95 per year for the next 3 years or just $19.95 until the end of my 3 year subscription?

Also, when you said "files and mail use the same database now" do you mean that the File Storage will use the same space as your email? So that my total storage is shared between emails and files?

Rich

If you read the option strictly, it says to the "end of subscription". So that would mean IMO till the end of your current term. I'm a 3 year subscriber too.

I think it uses the same physical database, but you'll get another additional 100 MB of storage allocated.

So perhaps Liz meant that sharing presently might pose a security issue?