but I’m not exactly sure what he was expecting. Storing files is an ongoing expense
He was expecting a company that promised unlimited data to not reneg on their advertised product. Or to simply delete data they promised to store because it’s inconvenient for them.
Yeah, it costs money to store things, something Google’s sales, marketing, and legal teams should have thought about before offering an “unlimited” product.
Reminds me of the guy who paid a million dollars for unlimited American Airlines flights for life. He racked up millions of miles and dollars in flights so they eventually found a way to cancel his service.
Here’s an article. It’s because he booked under a false name a few times. He had unlimited flights for himself and a companion, it’s beyond me why he didn’t do everything in his power to not give American Airlines a reason to void his ticket.
Update: here’s a really in-depth article written by his daughter that explains everything. Some of it was at American’s suggestion!
I’m sure he was expecting these things, at least until they notified him of the change. After that it’s on him to find an alternative solution. Are you arguing that he was still expecting these things after being notified of the change in service?
I’m saying that Google should not be allowed to sell a product with an advertised feature to gain advantage over competitors only to later change their mind and remove that feature when they deem it too costly.
A multibillion dollar advertising company should have to support the products they sell.
If you bought a car and one of the features sold was “free repairs for the life of the vehicle” you’d be rightly upset if a year later the dealer emailed you to say “actually, this was too expensive to support so we are cancelling the free repairs, but you can still pay us to repair your vehicle or we’ll sell you a new one, aren’t we generous!”
While I agree that it was Google’s mistake to offer this in the first place, there’s a decent chance that this specific guy is the reason Google decided to end unlimited storage.
Looking around at some storage pricing, he would have been paying over $2k per month to store that much data elsewhere. Maybe less if it was cold storage or archive (which would have meant accessing it wouldn’t have been as quick).
For your car repair example, it would kinda be like someone got that and then started going to every crash up derby they could find.
If your usage of an unlimited service is orders of magnitude above where the bell curve normally lies, you’re an asshole. And it’s a mistake to offer unlimited services because of assholes like that. It’s predictable, but they are still assholes.
For your car repair example, it would kinda be like someone got that and then started going to every crash up derby they could find.
No, it’s actually more like you bought the car because you know you’re going to rack up a million miles every year. Out of the norm but not an asshole move.
If Google didn’t want to lose here, they could have not had that feature.
200TB is a lot of data and a completely reasonable amount if you are doing a lot of filming. HD film takes up a lot of space, especially if it’s raw.
This sort of usage is so predictable I can’t imagine Google didn’t consider it when pricing things out. Heck, they advertised the unlimited storage space being useful FOR preserving photos and video.
Why give a company that spent 26 billion dollars making their search engine the default everywhere because they don’t want to spend the 1 million dollars it’d require to continue supporting a product they advertised. They could have ended new sign ups and just supported existing customers.
I don’t think someone should have to maintain an offer in perpetuity because they offered it once (though this differs from “lifetime” offers).
Google should be fucked directly for their anticompetitiveness. Unlimited offers should probably be regulated and forced to specify some limit, since nothing is truly unlimited (eg an unlimited internet connection is actually limited to max bandwidth * time in period). Or maybe they should drop the “unlimited” bit in general.
This is more like someone bursting into AT&T yelling, “YOU TOLD ME THIS PHONE HAD UNLIMITED DATA! WHY DOESN’T IT WORK!?”
…
“I HAVE TO PAY YOU EVERY MONTH FOR THE PHONE TO WORK!? WHAT A RIPOFF!! YOU SAID IT HAD UNLIMITED DATA! I’M CALLING THE COPS! WHERE’S YOUR PHONE?!”
Don’t worry about it. The police are already on the way.
OP is using a strawman, but it’s a reasonable one. In an ideal world, if a company offers unlimited data, then changes its mind, the least they could do is, I don’t know, ship the users’ data in SD cards for free.
While I agree SD cards are unfeasible, Google Cloud Services offers a Transfer Appliance. MSFT Azure Databox is a mere $350 for a round trip 100Tb NAS freight box. I think that something could have been arranged.
This is the crux of it. Should people expect actual unlimited data? Maybe not, if you’re tech savvy and understand matters on the backend, but also I’m fairly sure there’s a dramatically greater burden on Google for using the word “unlimited”. If they didn’t want to get stuck with paying the tab for the small number of extreme power users who actually use that unlimited data, then they shouldn’t have sold it as such in the first place. Either Google actually clearly discloses the limits of their product (no, not in the impossible to find fine print), or they accept that storing huge bulk data for a few accounts is the price they pay for having to actually deliver the product they advertised.
He was expecting a company that promised unlimited data to not reneg on their advertised product. Or to simply delete data they promised to store because it’s inconvenient for them.
Yeah, it costs money to store things, something Google’s sales, marketing, and legal teams should have thought about before offering an “unlimited” product.
Reminds me of the guy who paid a million dollars for unlimited American Airlines flights for life. He racked up millions of miles and dollars in flights so they eventually found a way to cancel his service.
Because he let someone else use it to see a dying family member iirc, which was a breach of contract
Here’s an article. It’s because he booked under a false name a few times. He had unlimited flights for himself and a companion, it’s beyond me why he didn’t do everything in his power to not give American Airlines a reason to void his ticket.
Update: here’s a really in-depth article written by his daughter that explains everything. Some of it was at American’s suggestion!
I went down a rabbit hole. Welcome to my warren.
It’s a fun rabbit hole
I’m sure he was expecting these things, at least until they notified him of the change. After that it’s on him to find an alternative solution. Are you arguing that he was still expecting these things after being notified of the change in service?
I’m saying that Google should not be allowed to sell a product with an advertised feature to gain advantage over competitors only to later change their mind and remove that feature when they deem it too costly.
A multibillion dollar advertising company should have to support the products they sell.
If you bought a car and one of the features sold was “free repairs for the life of the vehicle” you’d be rightly upset if a year later the dealer emailed you to say “actually, this was too expensive to support so we are cancelling the free repairs, but you can still pay us to repair your vehicle or we’ll sell you a new one, aren’t we generous!”
While I agree that it was Google’s mistake to offer this in the first place, there’s a decent chance that this specific guy is the reason Google decided to end unlimited storage.
Looking around at some storage pricing, he would have been paying over $2k per month to store that much data elsewhere. Maybe less if it was cold storage or archive (which would have meant accessing it wouldn’t have been as quick).
For your car repair example, it would kinda be like someone got that and then started going to every crash up derby they could find.
If your usage of an unlimited service is orders of magnitude above where the bell curve normally lies, you’re an asshole. And it’s a mistake to offer unlimited services because of assholes like that. It’s predictable, but they are still assholes.
No, it’s actually more like you bought the car because you know you’re going to rack up a million miles every year. Out of the norm but not an asshole move.
If Google didn’t want to lose here, they could have not had that feature.
200TB is a lot of data and a completely reasonable amount if you are doing a lot of filming. HD film takes up a lot of space, especially if it’s raw.
This sort of usage is so predictable I can’t imagine Google didn’t consider it when pricing things out. Heck, they advertised the unlimited storage space being useful FOR preserving photos and video.
Why give a company that spent 26 billion dollars making their search engine the default everywhere because they don’t want to spend the 1 million dollars it’d require to continue supporting a product they advertised. They could have ended new sign ups and just supported existing customers.
I don’t think someone should have to maintain an offer in perpetuity because they offered it once (though this differs from “lifetime” offers).
Google should be fucked directly for their anticompetitiveness. Unlimited offers should probably be regulated and forced to specify some limit, since nothing is truly unlimited (eg an unlimited internet connection is actually limited to max bandwidth * time in period). Or maybe they should drop the “unlimited” bit in general.
This is more like someone bursting into AT&T yelling, “YOU TOLD ME THIS PHONE HAD UNLIMITED DATA! WHY DOESN’T IT WORK!?”
…
“I HAVE TO PAY YOU EVERY MONTH FOR THE PHONE TO WORK!? WHAT A RIPOFF!! YOU SAID IT HAD UNLIMITED DATA! I’M CALLING THE COPS! WHERE’S YOUR PHONE?!”
Don’t worry about it. The police are already on the way.
OP is using a strawman, but it’s a reasonable one. In an ideal world, if a company offers unlimited data, then changes its mind, the least they could do is, I don’t know, ship the users’ data in SD cards for free.
233TBs in SD cards?! Lmao!
While I agree SD cards are unfeasible, Google Cloud Services offers a Transfer Appliance. MSFT Azure Databox is a mere $350 for a round trip 100Tb NAS freight box. I think that something could have been arranged.
This is the crux of it. Should people expect actual unlimited data? Maybe not, if you’re tech savvy and understand matters on the backend, but also I’m fairly sure there’s a dramatically greater burden on Google for using the word “unlimited”. If they didn’t want to get stuck with paying the tab for the small number of extreme power users who actually use that unlimited data, then they shouldn’t have sold it as such in the first place. Either Google actually clearly discloses the limits of their product (no, not in the impossible to find fine print), or they accept that storing huge bulk data for a few accounts is the price they pay for having to actually deliver the product they advertised.