591–600 of 692 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google decided it is time to sell GA for enterprises with 3rd parties involved. One client of mine (1B+ revenue, Xth largest website in Europe where x < 10) did not sort out the 3rd party agreement on time. Google's answer: we are going delete all of your data. Have a nice day!
this seems like there is something missing to the story though, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has an option to have hardware shipped to you that can hold 480TB uncompressed. Not sure if it works with the 'drive' but does with google cloud storage: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/introducing-trans...
The 480TB one is retired, replaced with a 300TB all flash one. But more importantly these devices are only for uploading to GCP, not exporting data from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I challenge you to go to any restaurant that has "unlimited refills", back up a tanker trunk and fill your truck. I don't think any court would enforce "unlimited" for that situation. I'm not sure this storage one is all that different
In fact all you can eat buffets ban people from showing up after they completely break the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but that's a separate problem.
No, it's really not. "Never trust your data to the cloud!" They never did. They used the cloud as a backup . They trusted the data to their computer with a cloud backup, which is usually better than not having any cloud backup at all. The problem is that their computers were then seized and they couldn't make another copy of their data in time.
BTW, one can go directly to a store and buy a new computer and start downloading.
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.
I really disagree with this type of literalism. Everybody knows nothing is really unlimited. It's marketing aimed at the naive. 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 shou…
If Joe Blow's computer shop down the street offered "unlimited storage" then normies would understand that to be bullshit. But when Google gives that offer, it's taken literally because Google. And this is Google's own damn fault, their PR teams built Google's reputation to impossible heights deliberately.
I think Gmail started with a promise of unlimited email storage.
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" 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…
You cannot export 240TB in 7 days. And a journalist can be forgiven for not knowing what the market value of cloud storage is. Besides, Google offers many services for free (or below cost) in order to maintain their dominant market position. I don't think your take is fair to the journalist.
>And, yes, some people have asked why Tim doesn’t have other backups around, but (again) the FBI took all of his shit. And finding (and paying for) multiple backup services that can handle 250 TBs of data is likely pretty cost prohibitive.
This was a pretty big story back then: https://www.tampabay.com/news/tampa/2023/08/10/tim-burke-fbi...
though the names in that URL probably gives the real reason behind this "investigation". Rich people got caught with their pants down and we know laws don't apply to them
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" 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…
I think the bigger issue here is that 237.22TB is not trivial, yet, it is still a gargantuan task to actually get a hold of a human being at Google.
Ofc you can argue that a Youtuber goes into such a contract willingly. This case is much more egregious as a series of "I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop. In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free?
In the world where Google says they will. This conversation cannot be had unless you will read the article and look at the screenshots. > to store your data for free? Where was it said that this was free? Per the article > So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage Please RTFA before responding. It really isn't that long. Maybe 1.5 TikTok videos for the attention impair…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, exactly. "He has 7 days or it would be wiped" is a threat , not a punishment. Was the data wiped or not? What are you willing to bet that we'll actually see a followup claiming the data was wiped? Almost certainly he's going to download the thing onto $3k of SSDs and get off the service, which is what everyone wants.
Moving 237.22 TB in 7 days requires ~3.14 Gbps of bandwidth, assuming that the clock starts ticking the moment that he actually starts moving data. In practice, the requirements would be even higher (subtracting out the time between notice being sent and read, plus time to actually set up alternative storage). Does Google even provide that level of read throughput to Google Drive customers?