If Microsoft cutting cost by limiting storage capacity can be construed to be done for environmental reasons, then why can't Google lay-offs be construed similarly? This is not changing the mix of energy production, it is not changing the supply of energy, it just changes the demand. Lay-offs similarly also reduce the demand on energy since people have less money to buy things that are energy intensive to produce, an…
What is the point you're making? MSFT don't care about the environment because they're choosing reducing storage energy usage over famine and war?
Again, cost-cutting is great, especially when it can be done with no impact to consumers and employees, because those are humans I care about.
In this case, it is at the expense of consumers, the people who are affected are getting less for their money. Shrinkflation if you will, but because of the corporate, bureaucratic and dysfunctional mess between the people paying and the people choosing MSFT — and the way MSFT operates, which is by bundling basically everything but the kitchen sink — there really is no practical way for the consumer to shop around with their money for a better cloud storage deal.
MSFT could still be the most inefficient storage, cloud storage space from competitors could be much more energy efficient for the same amount of GB — but the storage will stay with MSFT because they bundle it with everything else.
This has nothing to do with the efficiency of cloud storage or the carbon footprint of cloud storage. It has to do with giving people less value for the money that MSFT gets, and it works out because MSFT has done everything they can to ensure that there is no way this will result in revenue reduction.
From a shareholder perspective, this is great, you should give customers the least amount you can for their money so you can maximize profits, but if you tie this together with the immoral business practices of MSFT it really becomes very detrimental to society, the environment, and consumers.