Live data from Hacker News

Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

techdirt.com

261–270 of 692 posts

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#261
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this way until I had kids.

Do paper photo books of the best pics, now. The risk of losing all your pictures in 30 years is probably like 50%. The digital photo generations gonna have a void of childhood pictures when they get old.

$20, a half hour of your time, and a Walgreens coupon will give you a hard copy backup of a large stack of photos not much larger than a hard drive that can live in a drawer or shelf for years without worrying about capacitors leaking or any of the other rot that mostly immortal electronics catastrophically suffer.

An annual “print-a-thon” is a good way to capture those things that still matter after a year onto a more robust, albeit less flexible, medium.

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#262

Earlier 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.

Where do you see McDonalds advertising unlimited ketchup?

Condiment dispensing appear to be left to franchisees, but clear you only get up to 5 packets for free here: https://www.grubhub.com/food/mcdonalds/menu

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#264

Earlier 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.…

He had ~6 months to download his data, not 7 days: they told him on the 11th of May 2023 (or thereabouts they gave him a 60 day period ending on the 10th of July 2023) that he had exceeded his quota. They should, of course, have given a clear timeline for deletion at that point, but does he seriously expect other people to believe he was naive enough to think Google would continue to store his data forever after they…

The six-month grace period notice pretty clearly states his data would be read-only, while the seven-day notice seems to be the first time destruction is even mentioned. I think we can both agree that there's a world of difference between data being read-only and being destroyed. I think it's completely reasonable to say he has 7 days to download it.

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#265
post #202
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had backups. The FBI took them from multiple locations

I didn't see that, but if so, then clearly more steps (i.e., more locations, hidden) were needed in that risk scenario. Plus, he had 60 days, then 7 days notice form Google. I'm not saying I don't feel bad for the guy, but can you really say that it was smart to rely on even a paid Google account, considering how often Google randomly drop entire product lines, or nuke individual accounts for random reasons with zero…

Even more so time line:

2023/05/26 News about FBI seizure

10 July 2023 End of grace period

16 December 2023 closure of account

So there would have been plenty of time for new backups... Between July and December.

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#266

"Unlimited" anything needs to be retired as an offering since we know genuinely unlimited storage would be impossible to deliver. I assume it's easier to legally weasel out of a service offering if you say "Unlimited" (but really mean 5TB) rather than say 6TB (but really mean 5TB).

The one I hate is “unlimited bandwidth” by ISPs that then throttle and then aregue it’s unlimited because they throttled not cut off - no it’s not it’s data caps in a round about way

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#268
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time” for an “unlimited” cloud storage account." I don't see how can this be seen as "taking advantage of a system".

"Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time” for an “unlimited” cloud storage account." Thats highly subjective to the point of meaningless.

Wait, so its his fault that he did not pay Google more? "Just in case" money?

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#269
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're only skeptical of CF now? They've been garbage for years in terms of service and support

It has just seemed like people are big fans of the "free, unlimited" plans here. I use a provider that is pay-per-usage personally, which seems more sustainable. Support is part of the cost that is rolled into that pay-per-usage fee IMO.

I've worked at multiple places that unfortunately paid for CF services (and support), and have consistently had trouble with them. And that doesn't include just general CF service instability for end users.

Re: Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted

#270
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> taking advantage No. 100% wrong. If you advertise and sell "unlimited" then you should deliver unlimited. If you don't build in acceptable use limits into the contract, then that's your fault, not the customer's.

OT, but this is why I am skeptical of Cloudflare right now. Am I right to be concerned?

Yes. They will flip on their customers sooner or later. It might be years. And so long as you are prepared to bail when the time comes, you may as well keep taking advantage. But if it's critical infrastructure, make sure you have a failover plan ready.
Post reply on HN