Web pundits constantly bash on Microsoft for abusing "the average Joe", but is that Microsoft's target customer? Doesn't Microsoft make much more money from corporate customers? For example, in this case the hundreds of thuosands of office workers who use Microsoft Office at work would tend to have company servers to save documents to, and no need for space from MS. Also, I'm amused by these stream-of-consciousness rants where they author argues for vendor lock-in at the beginning, and then at the end sarcastically bashes on MS's tendency of "crushing everyone with the unstoppable power of the default, and the power of Windows integration". Typical mindless reversal.

Micah, you misunderstand. First, I'm absolutely not a pundit. If you look at any of my other posts at all, that's abundantly clear. The content to punditry ratio would be infinite but for this one post. Second, your point about Microsoft's actual target is basically the subtext of my post, though you seem to have missed it. Scoble is recommending that Microsoft invest in absolutely massive online storage. If we were to humor Scoble for a bit, who is going to be the actual user of said storage? Certainly not any company I've ever dealt with. The small ones that don't mind hosted services tend to also be strongly anti-Microsoft and pro-open-source. And everybody else subscribes to the risk-aversion playbook that says hosted services are the devil. Beyond that, any online storage supplied by Microsoft through Windows Live almost certainly won't have features like access control lists and user management, etc. So that basically leaves end users. And end users already have perfectly good hard drives that do the job of storing sufficiently large amounts of stuff just fine. The real advantage of a hosted service for them is the ability to access it anywhere reliably. Backups too of course, but nobody will actually think of it that way. Given that set of advantages, we're talking Word documents, spreadsheets, maybe some digital photos of the family. End users can be given terabytes, but the vast majority will never even approach that amount. In fact, the only people who typically have a genuine need for terabytes are people who are storing raw digital video footage. And that's not something you want to be trying to upload at the standard 256kbps of most broadband connections. Basically, my whole point is that the entire idea is retarded. Microsoft won't make any money off from it, and if they benefit at all, it'll only be through establishing good will by providing something that some people find useful. And that's assuming that they don't screw that up by caving to the Feds when they inevitably come looking for someone's data. The whole thing about vendor lock-in was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I'm simply reminding Scoble that he's a paid shill for Microsoft, and that Microsoft will not be earning copious cash by playing the warm-fuzzy Web 2.0 game. Anything 1.0 is more profitable. That is a fact.