5 ms·

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 applicatio

by 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.
- chrischen 9y ago
  Drive is terrible then if what it says on tje box can’t deliver working sync clients. Dropbox delivers working sync clients out of the box, even though you could just use their web interface.
  - dpkonofa 9y ago
    First off, I'm not sure why everyone is using the phrase "what is says on the box". There is no box for this service. Services don't come in boxes and the website doesn't say anything about paying for an app. You're paying for the service and the service continues to work. If you don't like the app and that makes using the service so much of a challenge, use another app with Google Drive or switch to Dropbox. The OP clearly has to use Google Drive because Google is the only service that offers unlimited storage space and they just want to be the squeaky wheel by falsely equating the app with the service that they're actually paying for.
    - Pyxl101 9y ago
      You're making an extremely nitpicky and useless distinction. If a service provider offers native clients for a set of supported platforms, for use with their storage service, a natural and reasonable expectation is that they will work. If a video game publisher sells a game for Mac and Windows, and one of those platforms doesn't work, then the affected customer is entitled either to customer support or a refund. The advertised product (native client on a certain platform) isn't working as advertised.
      - dpkonofa 9y ago
        Of course they should work. You're making a false equivalence, though. A video game is a product that you've paid for. The user in this case is not paying for the app, they're paying for the service. Just because Google offers the app to use with their storage service doesn't mean that their support should refund money to the user when the service itself is functioning exactly as advertised and intended. My contention is 100% with the OP's insistence that they deserve a refund because they're "paying for it". They're not paying for the app and the service is working so why is a refund in order?
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.

by paulmd 9y ago

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.
chrischen 9y ago
Drive is terrible then if what it says on tje box can’t deliver working sync clients. Dropbox delivers working sync clients out of the box, even though you could just use their web interface.
- dpkonofa 9y ago
  First off, I'm not sure why everyone is using the phrase "what is says on the box". There is no box for this service. Services don't come in boxes and the website doesn't say anything about paying for an app. You're paying for the service and the service continues to work. If you don't like the app and that makes using the service so much of a challenge, use another app with Google Drive or switch to Dropbox. The OP clearly has to use Google Drive because Google is the only service that offers unlimited storage space and they just want to be the squeaky wheel by falsely equating the app with the service that they're actually paying for.
  - Pyxl101 9y ago
    You're making an extremely nitpicky and useless distinction. If a service provider offers native clients for a set of supported platforms, for use with their storage service, a natural and reasonable expectation is that they will work. If a video game publisher sells a game for Mac and Windows, and one of those platforms doesn't work, then the affected customer is entitled either to customer support or a refund. The advertised product (native client on a certain platform) isn't working as advertised.
    - dpkonofa 9y ago
      Of course they should work. You're making a false equivalence, though. A video game is a product that you've paid for. The user in this case is not paying for the app, they're paying for the service. Just because Google offers the app to use with their storage service doesn't mean that their support should refund money to the user when the service itself is functioning exactly as advertised and intended. My contention is 100% with the OP's insistence that they deserve a refund because they're "paying for it". They're not paying for the app and the service is working so why is a refund in order?

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.