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

Post by nox100 » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

terminous wrote: post #138

boringg wrote: post #117

Earlier 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.

> 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.

Post by aPoCoMiLogin » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

dspillett wrote: post #103

A week of notice to move ~250TByte out is definitely unreasonable. 250TiB in 7 full days is an average of over 3.6Gbit/s, assuming no transfer interruptions and that he started immediately (i.e. already had other storage options lined up, and started transferring the second the notification email was sent). For a company like Google several Gbit/s constantly over a week, or even the tens of Gbit/s needed to finish in…

Post by boringg » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

avazhi wrote: post #175

boringg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Highly recommend reading the article again, slowly, until you fully understand the situation. This was a paid service until Google changed the terms; afterwards, Google claimed that the files would merely be read only (indefinitely), not deleted. After THAT, they then gave the user 1 week to deal with 250 terabytes. Read it again you understand that properly.

Post by cldellow » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #236

Nicksil wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The 'victim' here clearly knows they are taking advantage of a situation. Why do you think this?

Because they are using 237 Tb in an "unlimited" service from Google. And based on the mechanism they are using to pay for it (enterprise account with one seat) - they knew they had found a loop hole in google policy. (r/datahoarders) Seriously I'm all on board with giving Google the much grief that they deserve - but I also would expect someone claiming victim here to have more of a claim than abusing a "unlimited" a…

Post by bryanrasmussen » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #183

tedivm wrote: post #24

People 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…

> People really need to understand that Google is a garbage company that can't be relied on for anything. Normally the response to this is, yes, it sucks, but you're not paying Google to host your data. However, it looks like this journalist did pay Google to host his data. So this immediately puts it in a worse category.