Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Title is straight up lies. Enlighten us
The actual text in the story doesn't match the title. It's pretty obvious if you read it.
I'm dumb.
Where and what is obviously not matching?
Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
221–230 of 692 posts
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crisis (!?) is a bit dramatic. Google response isn't correct but everyone here has there hands a bit dirty. Storing 237 Tb on an unlimited server - the individual clearly knew they were taking advantage of a system and probably should have been ready for some kind of remedy.
> Google response isn't correct but everyone here has there hands a bit dirty. Storing 237 Tb on an unlimited server - the individual clearly knew they were taking advantage of a system and probably should have been ready for some kind of remedy. Google clearly made a mistake in offering an "unlimited plan" so it makes perfect sense that they're going to discontinue it, and offer 60 days before the data becomes read…
Yeah usually the thing about deadlines is that you should communicate them as harshly as possible, then let them slip when they do arrive. I.e. they want people off the service voluntarily and deal with the tiny fraction that refuses.
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "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" Correct. 7 days is not enough time to stream >200TB of data, let alone find a place to stream it to. This puts a human being in a crisis position. He doesn't need to just find someone willing to store his data.…
Crisis (!?) is a bit dramatic. Google response isn't correct but everyone here has there hands a bit dirty. Storing 237 Tb on an unlimited server - the individual clearly knew they were taking advantage of a system and probably should have been ready for some kind of remedy.
Yeah Google made a mistake, being online so long, having a huge legal team. They should know there is 0.1 - 1% users to will conciously or unconciously misuse your system and drive your cost up. Better to have fair use limits from the start.
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, let's blame the victim here!
I mean 237 TB of data is an excessive amount of data. The 'victim' here clearly knows they are taking advantage of a situation. Google is in the wrong on their response but, come on, let's be reasonable human beings and stop saying 'victim blaming'.
> I mean 237 TB of data is an excessive amount of data.
If it's excessive, then Google shouldn't have offered an unlimited data plan. They could have called it a 100 TB plan, but they chose to call it unlimited to make it sound better and then canceled it once people took them up on the offer. Regardless of whether that kind of action is legal, it's a shady business practice.
For that matter, there's nothing wrong with Google discontinuing the plan going forward, but they had plenty of options for making the transition more fair and building consumer trust without hurting their bottom line too much. For example, they could have converted his account to a 250TB account and tripled its price, at which point he wouldn't be in immediate danger of losing his files but would be pressured into gradually moving to a more cost effective solution.
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#225> And, yes, some people have asked why Tim doesn’t have other backups around, but (again) the FBI took all of his shit. I was about to say 'you should have other backups', but the FBI is a very powerful persistent threat, and might be the more important problem.
Startup idea: SaaS portal to trigger FBI raid on RAID disks, acting as a free replicated permanent archival storage. Retrieving the data is out of scope of the MVP.
> Retrieving the data is out of scope of the MVP.
Perhaps you can eventually submit a FOIA request?
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#226[flagged]
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#227People really need to understand that Google is a garbage company that can't be relied on for anything. I've spent years as a consultant, and several more in the startup world, and I'd rather host all my content in us-east-1 than rely on google. * I've had customers get their cloud accounts shut down for a literal three cent billing error, * I've seen people who use Google for advertising pay thousands of dollars and…
Their abysmal user support is the number one complaint. How the f*ck didn't they wake up to this issue by now. I think they are in dire need of a leadership change. If they want to serve businesses, they need to adopt actual business practices.
Support doesn’t scale so Google doesn’t want to do it out of greed and immaturity.
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#228The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "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" The facts of the article are even less inflammatory. The journalist uploaded 237.22 TB of video to his google drive when the "unlimited" plan existed. When google phased out the unlimited plan, he's not paying fo…
It would cost around $300 a month for archive tier storage, $5000 a month would be for standard ready access
Buying the drives would cost at least $5k
Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#229Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google offered "as much storage as you need" for the Workspace account, without attaching a condition on a required number of seats. It's not a loophole if a customer takes them up on the offer. I'm usually sympathetic with businesses who failed to appreciate how much power very few power users really have, but this is Google we're talking about. Their sales and legal department is larger than 90% of tech companies.…
This is like getting kicked out of McDonalds for ordering a small order of french fries and instead eating 400 ketchup packets. Things are free when people don't abuse it. Just be normal. Jesus.
In your analogy, the person was ordering the "fries with as much ketchup as you need", which McDonalds was specifically advertising for people who need a lot of ketchup. Also we would live in a world where eating a few hundred ketchup packets wouldn't be very unusual.
Go to the Internet Archive and look at the Workspace pricing page of two years ago. They put it front and center that you would get "as much storage as you need". They also made you go through sales, so if they only intended to sell the product to people buying hundreds of seats, that would have been totally possible. They didn't.