We like to give our customers regular updates on what we’re working on for future releases of Jungle Disk, as well as give customers the opportunity to tell us what they think is most important. Jungle Disk’s success has been largely due to your valuable input and comments. While we’re not ready to lay out a detailed roadmap today, we do want to talk about a couple major features we are considering:
- Public/Private file sharing: While Jungle Disk is primarily used for personal file storage, we know there are many situations where you’d like to share a file or folder with another person or group of people. Imagine being able to generate a link to any file or folder on your online disk and send it to another users to give them temporary or permanent access to that data.
- Multi-computer sync: Right now we offer two primary ways to use your cloud storage – via automatic backup or a network drive. Sync is really a third-way to use that storage – the ability to have a file or folder on your local disk that is synchronized between multiple computers automatically and instantly. While there are several popular cloud-based sync services already, we’ve heard from a number of users who would like a one-stop solution for backup and sync, as well as the simple pay-as-you-go pricing that comes with Jungle Disk.
- Offline support for the network drive: Currently our network drive feature requires you to be online to access your data, even though we keep some data in the local cache. Offline support would allow you to keep working when you disconnect, as well as specify which folders should always be kept in the local cache so they can be accessed when you are offline. We know this is important for mobile users, although it does overlap in some ways with the Sync feature.
So what feature are you most interested in? We’ve got a quick poll below for you to tell us, but feel free to leave a comment as well!
46 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Subscribe to our feed
BassKozz said,
April 4, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
+1 for Multi-Computer Sync
Boris Mann said,
April 4, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Damn. We have to pick from those three? I’d love to have a http://uservoice.com to allocate votes to.
I currently use Jungle Disk and experimented with the group account whatever, but it was way too clunky.
I’m a religious Dropbox user: I suggest that it’s going to be easier to consolidate, and wander over and buy them. If I had to choose between Dropbox or Jungle Disk, at this point I’d choose Dropbox.
So, I have to say that I need all three: I want to access the documents offline, be able to share folders with people, and sync the contents of folders between multiple computers.
beq said,
April 4, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
Me too, I would really like all 3 features! I do have a good feeling that Jungle Disk is talking about this, which means they do listen to the many user requests for all 3 features that have been posted in various places.
Is file sharing easier/faster to implement first? Afterward perhaps the multi-computer sync and network drive offline support can be implemented at the same time (since the functionality does overlap as already mentioned).
BUT whereas the “network drive offline support” scenario would apply syncing to the mapped drive location (similar to how Dropbox, Livedrive, ZumoDrive, etc, are restricted to sync to a mapped drive or dedicated location), I would request that JD’s “multi-computer sync” feature be made more versatile to allow syncing to any existing local folder location on each computer (similar to Syncplicity, SugarSync, etc). So you could sync a folder inside “My Documents” on your WinXP PC with the corresponding location inside “Documents” on your Vista PC and Mac.
I would also love for JD’s client software to have shell integration in Windows, to add status indicator icon overlays on synced files and custom Windows Explorer context-menu options (like Dropbox and Syncplicity).
Daniel said,
April 4, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
All three suggested features sound good.
A question though: To what degree would feature 2, multi-computer sync, solve also feature 3, offline support. One would have thought that you can’t have the former without the latter. If not, how would it work?
I love the pay-as-you-go pricing of JungleDisk over the competition. (*cough* .mac *cough*)
Ben said,
April 4, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Boris is on to something, although I’m not planning on ditching JungleDisk any time soon.
It looks like each of these three features is targeted squarely at Dropbox — and with good reason. Dropbox is more expensive, but using it really highlights the weakensses in JungleDisk today. My vote? These three features all compliment each other perfectly, and it would be a shame to prioritize one over the other two. PLEASE do all of them, and add them all as quickly as (ahem) good engineering will allow.
I’d much rather consolidate the tasks I’ve used DropBox for on to JungleDisk — the rates are just insanely better. By the way, I *love* the idea of CloudFiles — the same storage fees as Amazon without the transfer cost? I’ll definitely check that out when I get the chance.
jdm said,
April 4, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
More flexibility in specifying how many / how old previous versions to keep of changed files (by location, file type, size)
Artur Nowak said,
April 5, 2009 @ 2:59 am
I’m considering giving up JungleDisk for Dropbox, which isn’t competitive from cost perspective, but the synchronization feature works fantastic. Right now I’m using JungleDisk and different softwares on Mac and PC to sync local files on both computers via JungleDisk drive, but it doesn’t work well.
Sync function in JungleDisk is essential!
Rob said,
April 5, 2009 @ 5:25 am
Number 3. Network drive with offline support for selected folders – essential for netbooks. The day that ability was offered would be the day that I started to use it.
Can’t see any point in attempting to emulate any Dropbox features as I think they’ve got it sorted and nobody else will be able to better them unless the new service is built from the ground up (and even then I think taking on Dropboz at thier own game would be a very difficult, and largely pointless, thing to do).
Keep on doing what you do best, as they do with thier service, there’s no point in either trying for the others business.
@Boris. I’m not at all sure that ‘wandering over and buying Dropbox’ is a realistic proposition, for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is the likely cost of doing that, were it even possible.
Joachim said,
April 5, 2009 @ 8:59 am
To me all three are important. I would suggest to integrate something like Dropbox, which in my opinion solves all three (actually buying them might be a good idea).
Dropbox offers multi computer sync and offline support, as it keeps a copy locally.
I love Dropbox, but I do not like their payment plans and size limitations. Dropbox with pay as you go per GB would be ideal.
For JD I am also missing a boot CD for desaster recovery and a support for hard links (but I think that is a Amazon limitation – I do not know it Rackspace supports hardlinks)!
A copy or move of large file amounts from one bucket to another or within a bucket, without having to go through the local internet connection would also have a high priority on my list.
Borek said,
April 5, 2009 @ 9:22 am
I’m not sure I like the idea of yet another sync application. There are working solutions out there so why spend energy on creating another one?
Rather than reinventing the wheel, why not trying to think about existing solutions, their weaknesses and how could JungleDisk possibly fit to bring some value to the customers? Take for instance Live Mesh, which is my sync solution of choice (but it does more, like remote desktop, web access etc.). The biggest problem is that if I accidentally delete a file on PC 1, it will be deleted on the web and in all of the devices in my mesh. Here is where JungleDisk could come in – if all of my mesh folders were automatically backed up to S3 will all the version history that it already provides, I could never lose a file or make an irreversible change. There’s a business model here as Live Mesh will probably take a significant market share once MS starts marketing it.
It’s just an example but you get the idea…
Borek
Agenda said,
April 5, 2009 @ 9:37 am
The main reason why I need jungledisk is to share files. I have a website where users can upload content. I would like my jungledisk to upload everything automatically from my server to S3 and set the acl rights over there that I will be able to give a directlink to my users.
Khürt Williams said,
April 5, 2009 @ 10:09 am
I don’t want Offline support for network drive. This feature is similar to what ZumoDrive, DropBox, Apple’s iDisk, Syncplicity etc offer. While seemingly a good idea I find that having to give up valuable local disk for cache is not a good trade off. I would rather keep the contents in the cloud. However, there are other features of these services that would benefit JungleDisk.
Like Borkek suggested, being able to keep versioning history on all my changes and rollback to previous version of files or files that have been deleted would be a most welcome feature. All of the solutions I mentioned above offer that.
I don’t understand the request for syncing. I have my JungleDisk/S3 drive mounted on various computers. Saving files to the S3 store means they are available from the other machines as well.
I would also love to see and iPhone client. There are many occasions where I need to email a file to someone but I am nowhere near a computer. Being able to select a file from the iPhone and send via email would be killer. ZumoDrive and Soonr offer this feature.
None of the other “cloud” storage solutions have anywhere near the pricing or storage capacity of JungleDisk. I think, adding a few key features to JungleDisk (with Amazon S3 and RackSpace in the backend) would put JungleDisk way out in front.
JohnD said,
April 5, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Two items.
Multi-computer sync is def the +1.
Make the symantics really defined so we can work around them. For example, I want sync with reservations, so I can say, reserve this folder for me, and the system will tell me that I’m guaranteed to avoid a merge issue on save.
The Cloud Files issue is concerning. Amazon has gone into some detail about their infrastructure. Cloud Files less detail. The part that worries me is that Cloud Files doesn’t seem to have done a lot of testing. Launch product and whamo, they identify several issues (with no explanation given). Is reliability similarly prone to issues? Amazon S3 as of last year was at 14 billion objects. I don’t think there has been known dataloss that wasn’t user or tool error in that time, certainly nothing reported to the forums, which is hugely impressive.
Good luck with the software! And PLEASE don’t drop S3 support.
Dave said,
April 5, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
+1 for multi-computer sync.
I use both Dropbox (free account) and Jungledisk. I use Jungledisk for larger files and for when I care about security (love that I have the key and nobody else does). Dropbox gets used for everything else because I really like the syncing because I have five different machines that I use on a regular basis (home office, kitchen, office workstation, dual-boot laptop) and I like having the files already cached by the time I’m ready to use them, and I like to work disconnected on the laptop.
Paul said,
April 5, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
I would really like to see these three features implemented as JungleDisk will become my single cloud storage solution and for backup and DropBox like features.
However the one feature which I would to see more than anything is the previously described port of Jungle Disk to the Netgear Ready NAS to provide backup direct from the device (a Linux based SDK exists).
Thanks
Tony said,
April 5, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Great news guys. Of the features, multi computer sync and offline working are going to be the ones I’d make a lot of use of. Looking forward to these updates in future versions of JungleDisk.
Have been using the service a little over a week, and I’m very happy. It’s solved a couple of issues (like where to put backups and stuff I want to keep). The sync feature will solve an issue I have with email. I will be able to run it on a couple of PCs, having a backup, and not having to reconfigure everything to use IMAP (which involves changing hundreds of rules manually).
Keep up the good work.
WD said,
April 5, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
I still need overwrite protection, and some means of making backups “write once” unless an extreme deletion procedure is followed.
Connected PC dataprotector once was such a product, but Iron Mountain seems to be doing everything it can to screw it up (another company they bought and ruined).
Jungle Dave said,
April 5, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
@Khürt – Note that Jungle Disk DOES already have the previous versions / deleted file archive feature. It’s on by default for the automatic backup feature and can be turned on for the network drive as well.
Matt Johnson said,
April 6, 2009 @ 1:37 am
I would like it if JungleDisk was able to detect if a file had already been uploaded to the “online disk” and instead of uploading another copy, it just references the one already up there. This would save a lot of space and bandwidth for duplicate files, especially if I’m backing up multiple computers, or trying to sync data across multiple computers.
Matt Johnson said,
April 6, 2009 @ 2:46 am
I would like to see the Backup Search task take less time.
I would be interested to see something that monitors the changes made to the system rather then trying to recheck every single file in the backup.
It looks like this may be possible on both OS X and Windows:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/FSEvents_ProgGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa363798(VS.85).aspx
Though the implementations would be different, I’m sure the changes would allow Jungle Disk to be much more responsive to changes that need to be backed up, synced, or in just identifying things faster.
Cliff said,
April 6, 2009 @ 7:05 am
I’d like all three and I would like to see them implemented in the order they are listed above. Thanks.
Khürt Williams said,
April 6, 2009 @ 7:10 am
I think there are two different threads in this discussion. Some people clearly want a DropBox style service with Amazon S3 on the backend. Some people clearly want backup or online storage with over write protection. These two things are not the same.
DropBox is a file synchronization service. It is NOT backup. I’ve used DropBox, ZumoDrive, iDisk, and Syncplicity and Soonr. They are all file synchronisation services; online versions of USB flash drives.. From the web site:
“Dropbox keeps track of every change made to any of its contents. Any changes are instantly and automatically sent to any other computer linked to your Dropbox.”
What does overwrite protection mean in this context?
beq said,
April 6, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
In any case, I would like to see Jungle Disk move quickly to add these features, before the syncing/sharing service competitors start adding all the other features that have been part of JD’s advantage (run-as-service, native filesystem driver, Win/Mac/Linux versions like Dropbox, block-level updates which Dropbox also has, VSS to copy open/locked files which ElephanDrive Pro also has, handling extended file attributes (xattr) or resource forks/alternate data streams and ACLs, etc).
I also like the other suggestions here:
- a version of Jungle Disk for the various Linux-based NASes based on Intel CPU (Netgear ReadyNAS, QNAP) as well as non-Intel CPUs
- enhanced Web Access site interface with AJAX, and even multimedia file support
- mobile version of Web Access, or even a native iPhone client
Back in January I also posted my thoughts to a thread discussing this:
http://forum.jungledisk.com/viewtopic.php?p=42271#42271
pshangov said,
April 7, 2009 @ 4:32 am
+1 one for multi-folder sync.
From what I know, Syncplicity is the only service that currently allows you to sync *multiple* folders across computers, with each folder mapped to a different location on the different computers. But at $10 a month it does not come cheap, especially considering that I also pay a monthly fee for my mozy account. If Jungle Disk can come up with a single solution for both backup and folder-sync, I’ll be happy to switch since I will not only be saving my precious cash, but I will also be running fewer background processes – a serious issue for me.
Jack said,
April 7, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
I’m with Boris et al. on this. I already use dropbox, and it’s such a well-crafted application it would be a real challenge to get me away from it, especially as it’s a flat fee to keep data in sync, so i’m not really watching out for how much data i throw in there.
I’m all about option 1, at the moment.
ac said,
April 7, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
I’ve been thinking for awhile what I really need is to be able to point JungleDisk at a storage solution sitting at a trusted friends place. I like S3, but my remote backup space for media files is getting large enough that the S3 monthly cost is noticeable. I wish I could just aim JungleDisk at a different storage solution (i.e., a trusted friends place) and put my media backup there. My friend would do likewise back to my place. JungleDisk basic setup (e.g., encryption, versions, etc.) is already there.
Sure, I’ve got to buy a storage solution for my friend’s place, but that is a “one-time” cost vs. a monthly cost. Sure, it won’t have the reliability (i.e., “always on-line) of S3, but for my media files and much of my data I don’t require the reliability. I do require that my data is not loss and is secure (e.g., encryption).
My assumption is this is a challenging thing to do given dynamic IP’s, etc. of home broadband connections. But, I saw the multi-sync listed which I figure must somehow have to figure this out. That is why I put my comment here.
My vote for the 3 choices would be what helps to make remote backup to a trusted friend easier to do in the future. Thank you.
graham said,
April 8, 2009 @ 5:34 am
Off on a tangent, I’d like to be able to be able to decrypt files on the desktop without Jungledisk, just for peace of mind.
Other than that, I can’t say any of the above interest me. They’d all likely benefit the product, but I’m a boring vanilla person for my Jungledisk needs – i want all my family photos backed up offsite safely and reliably, and that it does it while I’m getting a cup of team, even better.
DropBox I’ve played with a bit for syncing my macbook and Mini. it’s good at what it does, but yes, a few good cautions that it is not backup.
AngusSF said,
April 8, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Another +1 for multi-computer sync. I’d dearly love to sync my Firefox profiles through JD. What I want is to have JD or JDWG link a local folder to a remote one and keep them in sync, even with open files.
File sharing is not on my list of wanted features.
Rich Bodo said,
April 9, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Hopefully some sort of single-writer access is implied in this list? Maybe it’s not on this list, but considered a bug. Otherwise, these users may get their features that expand file sharing capabilities, but when they try to actually use JungleDisk to share files, they will overwrite one anothers work.
Speednet said,
April 10, 2009 @ 8:33 am
I think the poll is closed, but what I tried to input is that my vote is for reversing course on the Windows Home Server decision, and reviving it as a maintained Jungle Disk version.
I really like the JD plugin for WHS, and I hope that you’ll end up building new features for it. If anyone has WHS but has not yet downloaded the JD plugin for it, you’re really missing out. Great software, simple to use.
Gady Margalit said,
April 13, 2009 @ 5:02 am
I Like all 3 features and I would like them all, but as all companies has limited resources you need to priorities, in that case I suggest offline, this would also give me ability to sync several PCs, since I could define it in several PCs
Neville Burnell said,
April 18, 2009 @ 5:38 am
I’d like to see the following in the workgroup/whitebox edition:
1) per user quotas
2) per user access expiry datetime
Fabrice said,
April 24, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Actually, I would add a fourth one: a Droboshare app… Any idea if it’s feasible and if you plan on doing it ? Thanks…
Bryce said,
May 4, 2009 @ 2:56 am
Dare I say it: compression. Block level uploading is fine for mail spools and log files, but for the files we have here (mostly office documents) the entire file changes on each save. Here at least transmit compression is appropriate. Some of these files compress by insane amounts.
Geoff said,
May 12, 2009 @ 5:07 am
For me personally, support for backing up locked files (like my SQL Server databases) by leveraging VSS would be really really appreciated soon!
charles said,
May 14, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
+1 for Matt Johnson. Great information. I would like to see the Backup Search get faster and on Windows I think the change journal looks like a good approach.
Jungle Dave said,
May 19, 2009 @ 7:45 am
@Geoff – VSS is already used when you enable the “backup in-use files” option
rupert said,
June 30, 2009 @ 11:37 am
hi,
both Public/Private file sharing
Multi-computer Sync
are at the top of our wish list, what is the current progress on these features?
rup
Matt Henderson said,
July 3, 2009 @ 11:55 am
What I love about Dropbox is the integration with the native filesystem. When I open a folder, I know that I’m looking at the current set of contents. When I open a folder in JungleDisk, after waiting the delay it needs to retrieve the folder contents (annoying in the cumulative), I then wonder if I’m looking at the most recent view of the contents (i.e. there seems to be considerable lag between the time that a colleague adds a new file to a folder that I’m looking at, and the time at which my view of that folder refreshes.)
If JungleDisk could solve that problem, I’d pretty much be happy with everything else about it.
phil coates said,
July 20, 2009 @ 11:11 am
I would love to see a drobo app for jungle disk…..
Jungle Disk » Roadmap poll results said,
September 1, 2009 @ 10:10 am
[...] feedback we’ve received from our previous Roadmap Post and poll has been loud and clear. Although there is strong interest in everything we mentioned (and [...]
Marco Alcala said,
September 13, 2009 @ 12:31 am
We need the ability to create a silent installation with preconfigured settings for automatic backups.
Paul Smith said,
October 1, 2009 @ 2:10 am
When you guys have these extra features working, me and 1,000,000 administrators are going to throw our VPN servers in the bin. It costs more to buy and run a file server in a co-location than use your service. You would own the market.
File/folder sharing by user, and auto sync would just about do it : )
Daniel Haynes said,
January 5, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
Dropbox can do all three, so why can’t jungle disk? I like your pricing plans better and want to be able to have an offline network drive.
Chuck Stump said,
March 30, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Any update on these 3 features?
John said,
June 21, 2010 @ 10:55 am
I am not excited by any of the Sync features. Jungle Disk seems to be a great tool for server backups. The other things just make me think it won’t be as secure…and going down another path. Why not create multiple products?