Technology

59608 readers

3439 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

927

Google Promises Unlimited Cloud Storage; Then Cancels Plan; Then Tells Journalist His Life’s Work Will Be Deleted Without Enough Time To Transfer The Data (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology

165 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cogman 39 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm saying that Google should not be allowed to sell a product with an advertised feature to gain advantage over competitors only to later change their mind and remove that feature when they deem it too costly.

A multibillion dollar advertising company should have to support the products they sell.

If you bought a car and one of the features sold was "free repairs for the life of the vehicle" you'd be rightly upset if a year later the dealer emailed you to say "actually, this was too expensive to support so we are cancelling the free repairs, but you can still pay us to repair your vehicle or we'll sell you a new one, aren't we generous!"

[+] Buddahriffic -8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While I agree that it was Google's mistake to offer this in the first place, there's a decent chance that this specific guy is the reason Google decided to end unlimited storage.

Looking around at some storage pricing, he would have been paying over $2k per month to store that much data elsewhere. Maybe less if it was cold storage or archive (which would have meant accessing it wouldn't have been as quick).

For your car repair example, it would kinda be like someone got that and then started going to every crash up derby they could find.

If your usage of an unlimited service is orders of magnitude above where the bell curve normally lies, you're an asshole. And it's a mistake to offer unlimited services because of assholes like that. It's predictable, but they are still assholes.

[–] cogman 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For your car repair example, it would kinda be like someone got that and then started going to every crash up derby they could find.

No, it's actually more like you bought the car because you know you're going to rack up a million miles every year. Out of the norm but not an asshole move.

If Google didn't want to lose here, they could have not had that feature.

200TB is a lot of data and a completely reasonable amount if you are doing a lot of filming. HD film takes up a lot of space, especially if it's raw.

This sort of usage is so predictable I can't imagine Google didn't consider it when pricing things out. Heck, they advertised the unlimited storage space being useful FOR preserving photos and video.

Why give a company that spent 26 billion dollars making their search engine the default everywhere because they don't want to spend the 1 million dollars it'd require to continue supporting a product they advertised. They could have ended new sign ups and just supported existing customers.

[–] Buddahriffic -4 points 11 months ago

I don't think someone should have to maintain an offer in perpetuity because they offered it once (though this differs from "lifetime" offers).

Google should be fucked directly for their anticompetitiveness. Unlimited offers should probably be regulated and forced to specify some limit, since nothing is truly unlimited (eg an unlimited internet connection is actually limited to max bandwidth * time in period). Or maybe they should drop the "unlimited" bit in general.