561–570 of 692 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but you're not paying Google to host your data. My organisation (OpenStreetMap) is paying Google to host our emails. They silently delete random ones, they never arrive at inbox. (we are preparing migration to competing provider) Paying does not help.
Which provider, if you don’t mind me asking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but you're not paying Google to host your data. My organisation (OpenStreetMap) is paying Google to host our emails. They silently delete random ones, they never arrive at inbox. (we are preparing migration to competing provider) Paying does not help.
> Paying does not help. As I pointed out in the very next sentence of my previous post, yes, in this particular case the journalist was paying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The mendacity in your comment coupled with the glee you express in it is disturbing. > Even for Google Podcasts which is being terminated, users who don't pay have gotten notifications for well over a year that the service was going to shutdown Uh, no. It hasn't even been 3 months since the shutdown was announced—and I personally only learned about it a few days after the announcement by a chance conversation with so…
Recently we announced that Google Podcasts will be discontinued next year. We wanted to reach out directly with more information on what to expect.
For now, nothing is changing, and you can continue to use Google Podcasts as normal. Over the coming months, podcasts in YouTube Music will be made available globally and we will start rolling out tools that will enable you to transfer your podcast show subscriptions from Google Podcasts. In YouTube Music, you will be able to listen to your podcasts just like you did on Google Podcasts, no paid subscription required. If YouTube Music isn’t for you, there will also be an option to download a file of your show subscriptions, which you can upload to an app that supports their import.
We acknowledge that this is a big change and want to thank you for being a loyal Google Podcasts user. We’ll reach out directly with more details over the coming months. In the meantime, if you have questions, please check out our Help Community here.
Sincerely,
The Google Podcasts team
I was trying to say that we have well over a year in advance to prepare for the google podcast service to terminate.
If you ignore emails that is on you, not the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying the morale of the story is: if your situation is not an edge case, you're fine with using google. We won't tell you ahead of time what is an edge case though, as google finds new ones all the time. Like that father during covid that took pictures of his child to send to the doctor...banned for CP.
>So you're saying the morale of the story is: if your situation is not an edge case, you're fine with using google. We won't tell you ahead of time what is an edge case though, as google finds new ones all the time. No, the morale of my story is not to get wound up by massive edge cases that impact 1-2 people. > Like that father during covid that took pictures of his child to send to the doctor...banned for CP. That…
But you never know who those 2-3 people are (2-3 people out of how many? surely there are more screwed by google). You might be one next time they decide to cancel accounts for new reasons and leave people without their stuff, there is no way to know when you're suddenly in breach of google's made up rules. And when you are, there is no recourse.
> That isn't an edge case thought, was it?
If taking medical pictures of your child, with no intent of distributing them on the internet is not an edge case, then I don't know what to say. Maybe you work for google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but I call FUD here; Had a very similar experience with google, except with maybe 20tb rather than 200, and no data loss. They gave warnings at least a year in advance about the transition to google workspace from google for business or however it was called before. It was quite clear that this transition would eventually be mandatory and that it did not include unlimited space for a flat fee. I punted on the…
Well... they could transition the data to tape with a delay for recovering it, instead of outright deleting it. At that point, storing it would be pretty much free no? Regardless, they promised something, then reneged, with little to no time to handle it. The way they handled it in terms of getting rid of the service is pretty terrible. Also apparently it wasn't his only copy - his others were taken, and now he's abo…
I agree it would have been nicer of them to store an archive after they stop paying. I disagree that they reneged on their offer - despite being disappointed that the deal ended, would I expect it to be offered forever, especially given the potential for abuse? Of course not. Frankly I’m surprised it lasted this long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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." Agreed that this is a crisis but it is not impossible. You can use 'rclone' - running on your own system or hosted elsewhere - to move data between cloud providers. You don't rely on your own bandwidth - they talk directly to one another: rclone gdrive:blah s3:some/bucke…
(Minimum rsync.net) is still (237.22TB x 1024 x $0.006/GB =) $1457/month. Most “independent journalists” I know aren’t operating on the kind of household budget where they can handwave that kind of bill away.
You're not storing any data on rsync.net - you're just using our 'rclone' that is built into the platform.
The minimum is $9/mo. Or less if you ask about the HN discount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlimited did mean unlimited though. There was probably some sort of limit but this guy never in fact hit it. But Google stopped offering unlimited storage (probably because of people like this who would store 100s of TB). They notified him of this months before discontinuing the service and he apparently made no effort to find a different storage solution, maybe because it would be really expensive to store that muc…
He was told that after the grace period ends, his account would become "read-only". Interpreting "read-only" as "I will still have read access to the data" is not unreasonable. I'm guessing that neither of us would have trusted it, but HN readers are not representative of the population as a whole. Google should have provided explicit notice of their intention to delete the data a reasonable amount of time in advance…
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.
I have no problem with banging on Google for offering "unlimited" things without telling you what the limits actually are. But at some point, you have to expect some level of knowledge and sophistication from the users. I think accumulating 237Tb of data is well past the point where you should not just take "unlimited" at face value, ask hard questions about exactly what the limits of what they're offering are, and move to a better supported service, even if it costs some money.
It's probably also time to re-think - do you really need 237Tb? That's a huge amount of data. Is this like raw 4k HD video of every interview you've ever done, uncut? Maybe it's time to cut down on things a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can sidestep that with something like Snowball Going by AWS's website[0], a 50 TB Snowball is $200, so you'd need to drop $1000 for five Snowballs to hold that data. [0]: https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-peta...
It's about $20k to egress 250 TB from AWS, so you still come out way ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not semantics, and it shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. You can sell ads without targeting. In fact you can even sell ads without users. Source: I worked years buying and selling online ads.
> You can sell ads without targeting. You can, but that's not really what Google is selling anymore. It's certainly not the only thing Google is selling. Unless you're making the claim that the data storage that Google uses for their data tracking isn't paid for by the targeted ad service? That if Google suddenly couldn't use that data for targeted advertising anymore that they'd still keep it around, or that none of…
> You can, but that's not really what Google is selling anymore.
Wrong again. Google's thing is search ads. Those target keywords, not user data. User data is a side-gig for Google, mostly thru youtube, maps, and gmail.