Whilst a "cloud storage" service may be nice, I think many users simply wouldn't use this, either becuase they already use a different cloud storage solution (i.e SkyDrive), or they wouldn't trust BitTorrent with their data. What's really interesting is if you take the example of Cubby (cubby.com). They initially offered a free "direct sync" feature in their sync software allowing you to sync peer-to-peer, along with a few GB's of free cloud storage so that you could sync between devices when they were off-line. However, Cubby then made the crazy decision to start charging for peer-to-peer sync, but tried to "sweeten" the deal by including 100GB of cloud storage as part of the new price. There was a massive backlash from Cubby users (http://help.cubby.com/forums/169907-general/suggestions/3465259-add-directsync-to-basic-version) over this change, with many arguing that they simply didn't need 100GB of cloud storage, and shouldn't have to pay for that when all they want to be able to do is sync files between their own devices! ...the result being, users left Cubby in their droves!! So, the lessons for BitTorrent to learn from this Cubby fiasco, are; "Are users really looking a new cloud storage solution, a peer-peer sync solution, or both?" ...Whilst it would of course be perfect to have both of these features in a single offering (like Mesh did!), BitTorrent need to be careful that the peer-peer sync side of things wouldn't suffer as a result of any venutre into cloud storage! (in a similar way that the Cubby service has suffered) Given that there are many FREE cloud storage storage offerings currently available (SkyDrive, DropBox, GDrive, etc), I think BitTorrent could have a hard time competing with these in offering their own cloud storage. SyncApp currently fills a nice hole in the market, and I for one hope they take full advantage of that by developing an amazing peer-to-peer sync solution, and then worry about any potential cloud integration at a later date!