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

111–120 of 146 posts

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#111

Post by bayindirh »

lgvld wrote: post #107
bayindirh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some people even hunt for "Unlimited for life" early adopter plans and grab them, then abuse them.

One of the backup services imposed a 12TB limit. Evernote reverted their unlimited data storage pledge, Google retired unlimited data in GSuite. I cannot say all of them due to hoarders but, Evernote CEO openly said that "People tried to zip and upload their backups to our servers. We're not that big".

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#112

Post by The_Colonel »

rsync wrote: post #101

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 in…

> ... 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.

This looks like a good theoretical point, but I don't see how it holds in practice. What would be practical examples of this happening? (assuming POV of somebody not intentionally abusing the system)

> If you pay for every bit you store, your provider will enthusiastically enable you to store as much as you can.

Again, good point in theory, but I'm not sure how this works psychologically - flat rates bring peace of mind and allow easier budget planning. I still remember how internet browsing in dial up days were sort of stressful.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#113

Post by zubspace »

FiddlerClamp wrote: post #83

Another Ponzi-like scheme: "Lifetime."

I think lifetime can very well work if done right, but not at zero cost for a user. You need a healthy business with guaranteed sales.

FL Studio [1] is one example which does it right. After buying a license you get lifetime free updates. But they offer different editions and plugins which are not free. So first, they get users hooked with lifetime updates and in the long run this will probably work out for them, because some power users want more in the long run.

On the other hand, services which are free and suddenly transition to a subscription based model annoy me to no end. The last time I experienced this was with a free e-mail hoster called Migadu [2] which killed it's free plan this year.

[1] https://www.image-line.com/fl-studio/lifetime-free-updates/

[2] https://www.migadu.com/pricing/#what-happened-to-the-free-pl...

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#114

Post by rsync »

The_Colonel wrote: post #112
rsync wrote: post #101

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 in…

> ... 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. This looks like a good theoretical point, but I don't see how it holds in practice. What would be practical examples of this happening? (assuming POV of somebody not intentionally abusing the system…

"This looks like a good theoretical point, but I don't see how it holds in practice. What would be practical examples of this happening?"

The example given in my original blog post:

"the more you upload, the more we throttle you. The little users don't bother us and the big users eventually just go away"

"Again, good point in theory, but I'm not sure how this works psychologically - flat rates bring peace of mind and allow easier budget planning."

Wouldn't you get more peace of mind knowing that your provider was working hard to support and enable your use-case ?

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#115

Post by The_Colonel »

rsync wrote: post #114
The_Colonel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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. This looks like a good theoretical point, but I don't see how it holds in practice. What would be practical examples of this happening? (assuming POV of somebody not intentionally abusing the system…

"This looks like a good theoretical point, but I don't see how it holds in practice. What would be practical examples of this happening?" The example given in my original blog post: "the more you upload, the more we throttle you. The little users don't bother us and the big users eventually just go away" "Again, good point in theory, but I'm not sure how this works psychologically - flat rates bring peace of mind and…

> "the more you upload, the more we throttle you. The little users don't bother us and the big users eventually just go away"

The thing is that I use the services mostly as envisioned - I don't upload > 2 PB of cam recordings (one r/datahoarders case I remember) into unlimited, so I fall into "little users", just like probably > 99% of users ...

> Wouldn't you get more peace of mind knowing that your provider was working hard to support and enable your use-case ?

Perhaps I'm naive, but usually I believe they do that either way. If I'm not happy, I'll go to another provider, but so far I didn't really have bad experience with "unlimited" services.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#116

Post by im3w1l »

Spivak wrote: post #38
anoncake wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that they did not pay for their fair share of a limited resource but for an unlimited amount of it.

Can we please dispel this notion that “unlimited” means literally unbounded to the point of absurdity. Seemingly everyone understands that bottomless breadsticks doesn’t mean that Olive Garden literally has infinite breadsticks and that you’re not allow to show up with a semi and tell them to fill it up. Unlimited means that you don’t have a set quota and as long as your usage doesn’t cross over into genuine abuse of…

The difference is that there is a common understanding of what unlimited breadsticks means. If you asked people what a "reasonable" amount of unlimited data storage meant, you'd get answers all over the place.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#117

Post by giantg2 »

imtringued wrote: post #44
giantg2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think accuracy is important. If an author isn't trustworthy or correct on this, then why should we listen to their other information in good faith? I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right?

The problem is that there is no overarching word that describes this class of "scheme". There are pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, matrix schemes, unlimited schemes and so on. Everyone uses an example of this class of scheme and then say that X is "ponzi scheme like" instead of saying that X is an instance of "circular fraud" where "circular fraud" is a term for this class of scheme I just made up on the spot. Just in…

The word "like" was not there previously, nor is it on the title of the article.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#118

Post by giantg2 »

foolmeonce wrote: post #36
giantg2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think accuracy is important. If an author isn't trustworthy or correct on this, then why should we listen to their other information in good faith? I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right?

It fits the flow model of a ponzi scheme: At each future stage a growth of fresh input is required to make up for a growing backlog of past transactions. Since the world is finite, the available growth must come to an end while the back log does not. (A possible disagreement with this is if expected media quality/size is growing in size similar to Moore's law.) The author makes their own distinctions in the article,…

Perhaps you can correct the definition on wikipedia then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

A more appropriate title could be "Unlimited Data Storage is Dependent on New User Adoption". No reason to use a title that doesn't fit and is just sensationalized marketing.

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#119

Post by giantg2 »

tomhoward wrote: post #31
giantg2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think accuracy is important. If an author isn't trustworthy or correct on this, then why should we listen to their other information in good faith? I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right?

It's a metaphor or analogy, which is a perfectly commonplace and legitimate form of argumentation. > I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right? Well, no; if it's an unlimited usage plan, then there's no more revenue from existing users, but they become more costly to support as time goes on, making the system ever more unsusta…

It's only legitimate if it's accurate and presented as an analogy. The title of "Unlimited is a Ponzi Scheme" is not worded to be an analogy and isn't accurate.

"there's no more revenue from existing users"

That's not what the article says. Existing users can create revenue. The cost could outweigh the revenue depending on the amount stored. If it were solely about new user adoption, then it wasn't presented properly in the article:

"They make money inversely proportional to how recent you stored the thing."

Re: Unlimited is like a Ponzi Scheme

#120

Post by gambiting »

sdenton4 wrote: post #105
gambiting wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it's quite the same - ISPs trade specifically in the amount of data uploaded/downloaded, so when they say you get "unlimited data per month" but in reality that's capped at 100GB, then yeah, that's misleading advertising. This is more akin a storage facility that says "we'll store unlimited number of your items, but you can only give us 1 tonne a month". But you know, if you keep supplying them a tonne a month for 10 years, then yeah, they will keep your 120 tonnes of stuff.
Post reply on HN