Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

scholar.social

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, that is deeply unethical behaviour. This is just 2024 again. My theory is here that regardless of what you might otherwise think of ESG, I think one of the key things to bear in mind is it imposes is that customer value is not the top priority. I understand of course that the longer-term idea is that, say, all businesses get better at waste disposal, and once that happens businesses can prioritise customer v…

Private companies in market economies have always been incentivized to maximize profit, and one way to do that is to charge as possible for as little as possible. Nothing has changed. The only difference here is now they have a bunch of people cheering them on for saving the planet when they do this. If you cheer on all other forms of shrinkflation, then sure, this is something you would also like. I should be clear…

> The main thing I'm bothered about is that this practice is cheered on by environmentalists when it is done by a company that has done everything possible to disrupt market dynamics. If one laundry detergent manufacturer does shrinkflation, I can fairly easily switch to another, if MSFT does shrinkflation on cloud storage, and they bundled it with everything else, I can't easily switch.

Well, I think I agree. The only reason I brought up ESG is it gives all detergent manufacturers the incentive to provide the same shrinkflation, and gain points for it. Not to say they will; I just thought it was an interesting angle.

I do think that offering infinite space and then limiting it to 20GB isn't quite the same as shrinkflation. It was silly to ever offer unlimited space. But they are definitely tightening the screws, I agree.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#172
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh? That makes zero sense. The EU mandates the type of port on your device, not the type of charger bundled or not bundled with it. It makes even less sense given that the Apple chargers were always just dumb USB-A chargers with a separate cable - and apple still bundles the cable. So the actual charger part wouldn't have changed no matter what EU decided on this matter.

They clearly would rather do wireless charging than change the port right now.

In what way? They did change the port, instead of throwing their hands in the air and going wireless charging only.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#174
post #66
post #47

On the Microsoft page[1] about this change they say > Storage of this “dark” data takes up space on servers and results in increased electricity consumption, generating 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 alone. Where "dark" data is data that is unused. However they link to this World Economic Forum Page [2] which says > In 2020, digitisation was purported to generate 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.…

I wonder why they've not instead pushed people towards a 'real' cold storage service like AWS Glacier. IIRC that uses a mixture of DVD/Bluray automation and for deep storage uses LTO tape drives. Solves most of the energy usage issues.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point is almost all cost saving measures can be rebranded as "environmental." It's just a PR trick.

When advocates lie about climate impact, charlatans see an opportunity to lie as well.

Let's not shift blame. Charlatans gonna charlatan, regardless of whatever misdeeds you perceive "advocates" have done.
Post reply on HN