Why I'm Sticking With Dropbox (Over Google Drive)

Selective quoting. The very next sentence says:<p><i>The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.</i><p>Furthermore: <i>You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.</i><p>The Verge compared privacy policies and concluded that they are not actually much different: <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...</a>

I saw people discussing this earlier on Twitter and I agree that the Dropbox TOS <i>sounds</i> better than the Google one.<p>My problem is that Dropbox does everything that is highlighted in this post as a reason not to use Google Drive. If anything, the Dropbox TOS reduces clarity by "hiding" that they do these things.<p>&#62; use, host, store, reproduce<p>Well yeah, that's what the service is designed to do. Dropbox does all of those things.<p>&#62; modify, create derivative works<p>Something as simple as creating a thumbnail of a JPEG is modifying/deriving your files. Dropbox most certainly does that.<p>&#62; communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute<p>Again, this allows them to show you your data in multiple ways that exist now or may exist in the future. Again, Dropbox does all of these things too.<p>I honestly think that Google should have added "We will never sell, give away or allow partners to access your files without permission" to the top of their new TOS. It would clear all of this nonsense up.

The Verge did a piece about privacy policies: <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms-privacy-data-skydrive-dropbox-icloud" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...</a><p>Not very conclusive but Nilay highlighted the fact that while Dropbox's terms seem friendlier, in legalese, it's perhaps has more leeway.Also, he mentions that Google's unified policy means that they have to be extra verbose/careful about this. For example, if I can attach large documents from my Google drive while e-mailing from my Gmail account (basically not have to upload it from the local system), I'll consider that to be an interesting value addition; but that'll require me to give Google the right to move files between their servers, maybe compress it etc. This is a hypothetical example.<p>I trust Google as much as I trust Dropbox (which is to say that I'm cautious) and I expect Google to refine their offering as well as their policy over time.

I will not stick to dropbox just because of some general and broad legal mumbo-jumbo. The truth is, both services are identical in terms of their intention to hosting your files. However, I cancelled my account today with dropbox for three reasons:<p>1) 5gb over 3gb I had at dropbox 2) Integration with gmail - you have to admit, this is awesome 3) Integration with google docs. I don't use excel or word anymore. I use google spreadsheets and docs. Now that ALL my stuff is in google drive, I no longer have to separate office-styled documents from pictures, videos and other files. All of them in one place is just amazing.<p>There's no doubt dropbox was innovative, but since I'm every day on google/gmail/docs - there's no reason for me to use/login to another service.

I prefer Dropbox because it's better integrated on the Mac — it doesn't break Quick Look, for instance.

oh boy, not again...<p>the db terms were the same, they rephrased it when the exact same panic rant about terms was raised all over the internet.

This looks like their YouTube license. I think they need to amend it specifically for Google Drive.<p>I seriously doubt this is anything more than a stupid omission on their part. They'll fix it and won't be doing anything notorious with your data.<p>Though Google.. I'd appreciate if you didn't "publicly perform" my google docs. kthx

So frustrating to see people are not learning from the past that these legalese phrases are NEVER as bad as they sound.<p>It seems this never gets old, does it? How often has this phrasing caused issues - and then when it's clarified it turns out it's just paranoid legalese giving them the right to show you your content to yourself on a public internet terminal etc.<p>I can recall these "Oh no! Read the terms!" articles for at least Dropbox, Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest, maybe for others. Each time it turns out to be harmless.<p>Seriously - do you REALLY think Google a) wants the rights to publicly perform your MP3s or display your pictures and b) even if they did, that they're stupid enough to think this wouldn't cause an outrage.

Also there is UbuntuOne. Also 5GB. I love it and have been using it for a while. Granted I only use it between Ubuntu machines and then access stuff online via the Web interface. Also integrated pretty well with the file browser.

It's scary that we are seeing how quickly the market is moving in this space.<p>First they competed for feature parity and there was bloodshed.<p>Then they went tried to woo us with their usability and we were in awe.<p>In the end price was all that was left and they scorched everything in their path.

Just to clarify: I'm sure that from a legal point of view the terms of both applications are similar. As a legal layman though, it's the apparent intent that makes me feel better about using Dropbox.