Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

staysaasy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#101

Post by rsync »

I wrote about this back in 2009:

https://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/11/flat-rate-stor...

... and the key concept is aligned interests:

"... paying a flat rate for unlimited storage, or transfer, pits you against your provider in an antagonistic relationship. This is not the kind of relationship you want to have with someone providing critical functions."

When you are doing something important you want your interests to be aligned with your provider.

If you pay for every bit you store, your provider will enthusiastically enable you to store as much as you can. Your interests are aligned. If you're paying flat-rate unlimited, the relationship is an antagonistic one and the provider will do all manner of sneaky, underhanded - even outright hostile - things to stop you from storing more bits.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#102

Post by taeric »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #99
taeric wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for internet bandwidth, it is more like an insurance scheme. You pay more than you probably need/use. Such that the seller gets to price in the risk for them that you will actually be a heavy user. And, like insurance, if you are actually a high cost user, you are probably SOoL. :(

I think all these analogies are quite leaky. There is a very simple rule that can be used to explain situations like this, without any awkward analogies: don't expect to be able to indefinitely cost a company much more money than they make from you.

I don't even really disagree. But I should be able to expect that they can't advertise what they can't deliver.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#103

Post by rsync »

Waterluvian wrote: post #100
rsync wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... oh and now that I think about it, rclone connects directly to google photos so I think you can skip the google takeout and just: ssh user@rsync.net rclone gphotos:/what/ever /rsync/account

This sounds wonderful. I'll try the gphotos (or maybe both) route and write about my experince. Thanks!

... to clarify, I made up that 'gphotos' alias in the command line - I have no idea what the actual alias is ... but it is all documented here:

https://rclone.org/googlephotos/

... and you can, indeed, rclone directly from google photos to your rsync.net account, etc.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#104

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

taeric wrote: post #102
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all these analogies are quite leaky. There is a very simple rule that can be used to explain situations like this, without any awkward analogies: don't expect to be able to indefinitely cost a company much more money than they make from you.

I don't even really disagree. But I should be able to expect that they can't advertise what they can't deliver.

I don't know why you would expect that. There is copious evidence that, over time, the signal from advertisements and statements decays. There are a few companies that still follow policies they put in place decades ago, but it is the unusual case.

Moreover, "unlimited storage," of course, does not mean unlimited storage forever. Nobody and nothing can give you forever. It means there is no limit presently.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#105

Post by sdenton4 »

gambiting wrote: post #88
redm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing you can do other than move away from unlimited storage. The model, as the OP states, works well initially, however over time, "power users" emerge to want to make use of unlimited. The only choice is to remove unlimited storage as a fixed subscription fee. You may have metered billing (unlimited storage but you are charged per GB) or to do away with unlimited storage all together. Keep in mind, that c…

Actually, that's a pretty interesting solution, I wonder if that would work. Unlimited storage, but you can only upload 100GB per month. Or 1TB per year, so you can upload loads of data at once.

The ISPs have tried some 'fake unlimited' plans over the years, which got a lot of pushback. eg, unlimited data but you're capped at 2G speeds after 10GB. It's a model that totally sucks for normal users who happen to hit the limit, but could work better in a storage context: full speed instant access to a 100TB archive blob isn't quite as much a day-to-day personal essential as basic mobile data. And if you DO need fast access, there should be a path to pay for it.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#106

Post by rsync »

redm wrote: post #3

I launched MediaFire as an unlimited storage provider in 2006. While it is true that data accumulates as time goes on, it's not as big of an issue as described. Older data tends to be smaller, for example, photos were lower resolution. That is compounded by the fact that storage is getting cheaper. For example, the price for a 500GB drive in 2006 is the same as a 14TB drive price today. If your getting the same subsc…

"In my findings, the reason unlimited doesn't work is a small percentage of users (very small, like ~0.1%) who push it to the extreme. In other words, if your exhaust 50% of your resources to service 0.1% of your users, at a fixed subscription cost, the model doesn't work."

I maintain that there is a deeper problem and that is the concept of aligned interests.

The provider can say all manner of nice things and we can all smile and feel good but if the economic interests don't line up no matter how trivially there is going to be an antagonistic relationship. I don't care how much tailwind we're all getting from diminishing hard drive costs - the relationship remains fundamentally broken.

I want my provider to enthusiastically embrace my own goals - especially in critical areas like data backup.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#107

Post by lgvld »

bayindirh wrote: post #49
oefrha wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've long suspected that r/DataHoarder is why we can't have nice things, i.e. cheap online data storage that is slightly subsidized by the average user who only stores a little. Thanks for confirming from the point of view of a major storage provider.

I follow r/Datahoarder for best practices and methods for getting my own stuff (like HumbleBundle or purchased eBook libraries) to my own local storage but, some of them really abuse online storage providers. I cringe sometimes reading all the posts. Why on the world someone try to mirror nearly everything to somewhere like Scrat from the Ice Age?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsive_hoarding

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#108

Post by rsync »

sleavey wrote: post #8
redm wrote: post #3

I launched MediaFire as an unlimited storage provider in 2006. While it is true that data accumulates as time goes on, it's not as big of an issue as described. Older data tends to be smaller, for example, photos were lower resolution. That is compounded by the fact that storage is getting cheaper. For example, the price for a 500GB drive in 2006 is the same as a 14TB drive price today. If your getting the same subsc…

> In my findings, the reason unlimited doesn't work is a small percentage of users (very small, like ~0.1%) who push it to the extreme. In other words, if your exhaust 50% of your resources to service 0.1% of your users, at a fixed subscription cost, the model doesn't work. How do you handle such users at MediaFire?

"How do you handle such users at MediaFire?"

You silently and/or passive aggressively throttle the whales in such a way that they go away.

I learned this a long time ago (1998) while consulting for a very large and successful early web host (Simplenet). They allowed unlimited bandwidth and one of my first questions was "how do you make that work?".

They mercilessly throttled the top 1-2% of users until they just went away. Easy.

That very well illustrated to me what happens when interests are not aligned. The provider is going to actively work against you - as opposed to actively enable you.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#109

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

selectodude wrote: post #87
salawat wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"If you can get it to us, we'll store it" is totally reasonable." No it isn't. On the one hand you say we'll store it if you can get it to us, then on the other you build an obstruction to data getting to you. Data propagation is part of storage. I have to get bits off my processor, to your physical media to be stored, and you just built a barrier to keep that from happening. You don't get to use "unlimited" for mar…

I have unlimited data transfer on my home internet connection. Is my ISP pulling a "bait and switch" because my internet bandwidth isn't also unlimited? Ignoring the whole "physically impossible" thing, of course. The entire universe is a bait and switch using that sort of logic.

If the provider deliberately reduced speeds to ensure that you would never be able to get past a certain amount, then it's a cap. A naturally occurring limit wouldn't bother me, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#110

Post by taeric »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #104
taeric wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even really disagree. But I should be able to expect that they can't advertise what they can't deliver.

I don't know why you would expect that. There is copious evidence that, over time, the signal from advertisements and statements decays. There are a few companies that still follow policies they put in place decades ago, but it is the unusual case. Moreover, "unlimited storage," of course, does not mean unlimited storage forever . Nobody and nothing can give you forever. It means there is no limit presently.

You are arguing past me. I'm talking about "unlimited" plans being sold today, that have rather low limits. You are grand standing that everything is limited.

Which, yes. Yes it is. Should we allow folks to sell unlimited gigabit connections, but only have a connector in their data center? That you can only use for limited time?

Now, do I agree with unlimited promotionals that will eventually go away? Yes. Do I like loss leaders that are basically made to gas light and destroy competition with the obvious goal of just out lasting how long the competition can manage? No. I find that rather reprehensible.

Post reply on HN