Google has at long last officially announced Google Drive, and tech blogs are awash with comparisons to Dropbox, iCloud (slightly unfairly), SkyDrive, and other cloud storage services. The early consensus seems to be that SkyDrive just wins out in terms of free storage and incremental paid storage (particularly if, like me, you already had a SkyDrive account and opted in to the free 25 Gb capacity upgrade), while none of the main platforms support all the clients that you may have been hoping for (omitting Linux, Android, iOS, or Windows Phone depending on which platform you’re looking at).

This explosion in available online storage has looked inevitable ever since Dropbox (and several other firms) really hit home with simple desktop folder-like services that don’t try to do too much (sync calendars, offer workflow solutions, etc.). Security experts will argue about whether the encryption is up to snuff (it isn’t), but most consumers will be storing personal (non-confidential) material on there anyway.

Arguably, we’re only at day 1 of the real competition. Features (and third-party clients) will be added, the free storage amounts will (inevitably) increase over time, and different business models and audience segments will emerge — for example, services for SMB customers are already available.

The key question, though, is whether these firms can make a business out of this. In the short term, certainly — as long as they’re offering something that isn’t free elsewhere (remember those “premium” web email services that offered more storage before those limits pretty much disappeared — thanks, Google) or that has better functionality/is easier to use than the competition (Dropbox still scores well here). The problem for the pure-play offerings is that when storage becomes just another feature of Microsoft’s, Google’s, Amazon’s, or Apple’s online offerings — most of which are free or wrapped up in one easy subscription — the justification for paying separately for the service disappears.

This is where the dreadful “stickiness” term comes into play: Dropbox, ADrive, JustCloud, SugarSync, and hosts of others need to fight to make their service so attractive (or difficult to give up) that continuing to pay a reasonable fee seems the best option. But this is tricky; they can’t offer more and more storage, and erecting barriers to prevent consumers moving their files elsewhere defeats the whole object of the service. In fact, as the once-superior Dropbox client shows, any advantage is likely to be short-lived. One possible key to survival is making the storage useful to the user’s social circle, not just the user. I’m less likely to move my thrilling 4-hour video of the kids’ last birthday party if it means I have to bring the grandparents up to speed on how to register for and access a new online storage solution. Dropbox is introducing direct links to customers’ shared files, which is a nice step in this direction.* Its referral program’s offering of extra storage for each person you get to sign up has also swelled its customer ranks nicely to 50 million people – that’s a lot of people, and unlikely to decline too rapidly.

However, I’m not convinced that the best route for Dropbox and its ilk beyond the next 12 months isn’t to get bought by the likes of a Google or Microsoft looking to grow their own user base. An alternative, for the more ambitious pure plays, would be to partner into an emerging ecosystem to fight the established players; combine online storage with a social network, Twitter client, location service, and mobile data plans, and suddenly you are looking at a compelling bundle. Unfortunately, most of these other apps are free to use and already have privacy concerns, so online storage of personal files may not fit well with this. Google will have to face this challenge itself.

* (In fact, Dropbox’s official blog pretty much uses a [less cynical] word-for-word version of the previous example, which I’ve only just looked at, honest!)