5 ms·

This is my annoyance with the OP - they're a very clear edge case and, technically, the product still works for them. They're not paying for a Windows or Mac ap

This is my annoyance with the OP - they're a very clear edge case and, technically, the product still works for them. They're not paying for a Windows or Mac app, they're paying for online storage and that part of the service works fine. They can still access all their files via the web browser and they can add and download files as they see fit. The issue with the app is probably exactly what you're mentioning and the person is acting like the service they're paying for is broken. It's not broken, they're just using the service in a very non-standard way. Edit: Since people seem to be voting my comments down, I'll offer an analogy. This is like a professional bowler going to a family bowling alley and complaining about the balls they provide for you to use. These same balls work for 99% of the people paying to bowl. You don't deserve a refund because you're an edge case from all their other customers since the actual bowling alley is still open and you can still bowl, it just might not be a great experience. Get another ball, bring your own ball, or stop coming to this bowling alley.

paulmd 9y ago
No, Google Drive is sold as a customer-facing service and customers have a basic expectation that it will do what it says on the box. If the Dropbox application didn't run, I'd be pissed too, even if it does happen to be "online storage". If someone was complaining that an Amazon S3 application was broken, that would be a different story.
- dpkonofa 9y ago
  It does do what it says on the box. You're not required to download any of the apps in order to use Google Drive. My contention is that the OP claims that they deserve some kind of reimbursement because "they're paying for it" but the "it" here is not the app, it's the service. They're paying for online storage. There are several ways to sync your files to that service. The Google Drive app is a free option. He's paying for the service, not the app. Note that even you said "service" in your description of what it is.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    The syncing apps are absolutely part of the package.
    - dpkonofa 9y ago
      They're a part of the package but they are not what the user is paying for. If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. People aren't paying for the app, they're paying for the service and, at least in this case, the service is still working. If the OP was actually concerned with finding a solution to their problem (which is absolutely an edge case) and not just being a squeaky wheel, they'd pay $30 for InSync or find another free tool that syncs with Google Drive. The Google app is a bonus provided by Google to make the use of their service easier. The OP complaining about being a paying customer is pointless because what they're paying for is still completely useable.
      - jfoutz 9y ago
        No. It's literally "Store, sync, and share files easily." [1] There is no way to sync a device without an app. The app is not a bonus, it is a core feature of the service. [1] https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/ https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/
        dpkonofa 9y ago
        And it does exactly that for 99.9% of users. The app is not what the user is paying for, though, and he doesn’t deserve a refund just because it doesn’t work for his particular situation.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. You just assert this as if it was self-evident, but it's not. The same feature can be offered for free and as a paid component of a package, just like the same code can be licensed to some under the GPL and to others under a proprietary license. In this case, syncing is part of the service being purchased, and the means to achieve that is absolutely part of the package, even if it's also offered for free to others.
- victorhooi 9y ago
  If you read above - Dropbox does exactly that... > https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit They claim a limit of around 300,000 files - this user apparently has 700,000 files. The Google sync client doesn't have a hard limit per se, but yes, the performance does similarly decline after a certain point - it depends on a number of factors, but it's possibly at 700,000 that you would see issues. It should be able to comfortably handle 300,000 though. In fact, most Desktop sync clients experience similar things. I do know this is something we're aware of and are actively improving. In fact, we have a new Backup and Sync client that we announced recently and should be going GA shortly. There's no details I have to contact this specific customer to see if I can intercede, but if anybody knows, please comment here. (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but any comments above are my own).
  - natch 9y ago
    That seems like a ridiculously small number of files at which to start encountering problems. I would expect Google to make things more scalable. Yes I realize you have to work with what the OS gives you, but still, you can build your own stuff on top of that, no?
    - chias 9y ago
      Keep in mind this is a 32-bit system. As a result it has at most 3.5 gigs of memory for the entire system, and e.g. on windows this will limit a single process to 2 gigs. If the sync client keeps some kind of in-memory representation of your files (a very reasonable thing to do for the vast majority of clients), and if you have 700,000 files, and assuming that folder references magically take up no space and that the sync client uses no other memory whatsoever, that's less than 3k per file representation before you crash. If that is indeed contributing to the problem, it's most likely just a case of doing what's optimal for normal workloads, and simply not having engineered a backup solution for cases which fall so far outside of your expected usage that it didn't seem worth considering at the onset. This kind of change would also be very non-trivial to engineer, likely requiring a rather large amount of refactoring.
icelancer 9y ago
Then Google support needs to tell him that and tell him to stop doing that, and if he doesn't like it, he can get a refund and go somewhere else. Not this five month garbage runaround BS support nonsense.
- dpkonofa 9y ago
  It seems they already have otherwise we wouldn’t even know what the limit is for the files.
laurent123456 9y ago
They might be an edge case but in that case the problem is that the client crashes without any explanation. If it had displayed an error like "Sorry, the Google Drive client does not currently more than 700,000 files - you may use the web client instead" and exit, that would have saved a lot troubles to this user. Also why can't the support tell him that directly, instead of the endless vague explanations.

paulmd 9y ago

No, Google Drive is sold as a customer-facing service and customers have a basic expectation that it will do what it says on the box. If the Dropbox application didn't run, I'd be pissed too, even if it does happen to be "online storage". If someone was complaining that an Amazon S3 application was broken, that would be a different story.

dpkonofa 9y ago
It does do what it says on the box. You're not required to download any of the apps in order to use Google Drive. My contention is that the OP claims that they deserve some kind of reimbursement because "they're paying for it" but the "it" here is not the app, it's the service. They're paying for online storage. There are several ways to sync your files to that service. The Google Drive app is a free option. He's paying for the service, not the app. Note that even you said "service" in your description of what it is.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  The syncing apps are absolutely part of the package.
  - dpkonofa 9y ago
    They're a part of the package but they are not what the user is paying for. If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. People aren't paying for the app, they're paying for the service and, at least in this case, the service is still working. If the OP was actually concerned with finding a solution to their problem (which is absolutely an edge case) and not just being a squeaky wheel, they'd pay $30 for InSync or find another free tool that syncs with Google Drive. The Google app is a bonus provided by Google to make the use of their service easier. The OP complaining about being a paying customer is pointless because what they're paying for is still completely useable.
    - jfoutz 9y ago
      No. It's literally "Store, sync, and share files easily." [1] There is no way to sync a device without an app. The app is not a bonus, it is a core feature of the service. [1] https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/ https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/
      - dpkonofa 9y ago
        And it does exactly that for 99.9% of users. The app is not what the user is paying for, though, and he doesn’t deserve a refund just because it doesn’t work for his particular situation.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. You just assert this as if it was self-evident, but it's not. The same feature can be offered for free and as a paid component of a package, just like the same code can be licensed to some under the GPL and to others under a proprietary license. In this case, syncing is part of the service being purchased, and the means to achieve that is absolutely part of the package, even if it's also offered for free to others.
victorhooi 9y ago
If you read above - Dropbox does exactly that... > https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit They claim a limit of around 300,000 files - this user apparently has 700,000 files. The Google sync client doesn't have a hard limit per se, but yes, the performance does similarly decline after a certain point - it depends on a number of factors, but it's possibly at 700,000 that you would see issues. It should be able to comfortably handle 300,000 though. In fact, most Desktop sync clients experience similar things. I do know this is something we're aware of and are actively improving. In fact, we have a new Backup and Sync client that we announced recently and should be going GA shortly. There's no details I have to contact this specific customer to see if I can intercede, but if anybody knows, please comment here. (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but any comments above are my own).
- natch 9y ago
  That seems like a ridiculously small number of files at which to start encountering problems. I would expect Google to make things more scalable. Yes I realize you have to work with what the OS gives you, but still, you can build your own stuff on top of that, no?
  - chias 9y ago
    Keep in mind this is a 32-bit system. As a result it has at most 3.5 gigs of memory for the entire system, and e.g. on windows this will limit a single process to 2 gigs. If the sync client keeps some kind of in-memory representation of your files (a very reasonable thing to do for the vast majority of clients), and if you have 700,000 files, and assuming that folder references magically take up no space and that the sync client uses no other memory whatsoever, that's less than 3k per file representation before you crash. If that is indeed contributing to the problem, it's most likely just a case of doing what's optimal for normal workloads, and simply not having engineered a backup solution for cases which fall so far outside of your expected usage that it didn't seem worth considering at the onset. This kind of change would also be very non-trivial to engineer, likely requiring a rather large amount of refactoring.

icelancer 9y ago

Then Google support needs to tell him that and tell him to stop doing that, and if he doesn't like it, he can get a refund and go somewhere else. Not this five month garbage runaround BS support nonsense.

dpkonofa 9y ago
It seems they already have otherwise we wouldn’t even know what the limit is for the files.

laurent123456 9y ago

They might be an edge case but in that case the problem is that the client crashes without any explanation. If it had displayed an error like "Sorry, the Google Drive client does not currently more than 700,000 files - you may use the web client instead" and exit, that would have saved a lot troubles to this user. Also why can't the support tell him that directly, instead of the endless vague explanations.