4 ms·

The relationship is only antagonistic if the provider isn't willing to actually commit to the product they're selling. If you sell unlimited, you're selling un

The relationship is only antagonistic if the provider isn't willing to actually commit to the product they're selling. If you sell unlimited, you're selling unlimited. It's not an antagonistic relationship. It's only antagonistic when they decide that "Unlimited" needs some asterisks behind it. The business of selling truly unlimited might not be feasible or viable, but this is more a transparency issue than anything. If you're not willing to actually provide unlimited, don't say that you are. It's that simple. It's hard for me to feel sympathetic to Google/Amazon for having to store someones 1.8 Petabyte porn collection because that's what they sold them. Clearly they've decided that selling unlimited doesn't make business sense, and that's okay. They're probably right! But if you offer a product, you should be delivering that product. Anything less is gross.

klodolph 6y ago
> The relationship is only antagonistic if the provider isn't willing to actually commit to the product they're selling. I don’t think the capacity exists to continue serving “unlimited” storage long-term. Over time, the amount of free storage people use increases until you can’t sustain the practice. It’s just a matter of time. The good bed is that paid storage is ridiculously cheap.
anderspitman 6y ago
I don't think that's rsync's point. The point is that when someone offers you unlimited storage for a flat rate, your incentives aren't aligned, no matter how good the other party's intentions are. I recommend reading the linked article. It's short and succinct.
nashashmi 6y ago
> If you sell unlimited, you're selling unlimited. It's not an antagonistic relationship. It's only antagonistic when they decide that "Unlimited" needs some asterisks behind it. If the business sells unlimited because it does not want the general consumer to feel constricted with online storage, then it is a benefit for the general consumer. When abusers of business products test the business' abilities, they ruin the business' chance of offering a great product that the consumer can find convenience with. All-you-can eat buffet should be treated as such. But when a bunch of big college guys decide to hang out at an all-you-can eat from 8 am to 8 pm studying and eating, it defeats the product. It defeats the offering for others. And it takes away the experience of going to a place never having to worry about ordering more food than you can eat. This ain't about feeling sorry for the business. This is about feeling sorry for the consumer. It is one abuser that hurts consumer. And that is bad economics for all people.
- hellotomyrars 6y ago
  I'm somewhat more sympathetic to this position in this case as Google was truly providing Unlimited (until now), essentially. My issue is more that many things are labelled "Unlimited" but they aren't. They aren't even close. Cell Data plans are Unlimited* (Up to 15GB tethered, Up to 25GB at 4G speed, Video limited to 720P) The thrust of my point is that if you say Unlimited, you should mean it. If that means nobody says it, I'm okay with that. They have a business to run and they should do what they need to to make it work. But I don't think they should be able to get away with selling it as "Unlimited" when there are several fine print details to define what that means that are as hidden as possible so that you don't know what they are until you've been parted with your money and run up against the limits.
- Xelbair 6y ago
  The amount of people who will stay from 8 am to 8pm will be small and should be taken into account when deciding to offer something without limits. You cannot have the cake(advertisement of unlimited offer) and eat the cake(limit the unlimited).

klodolph 6y ago

> The relationship is only antagonistic if the provider isn't willing to actually commit to the product they're selling. I don’t think the capacity exists to continue serving “unlimited” storage long-term. Over time, the amount of free storage people use increases until you can’t sustain the practice. It’s just a matter of time. The good bed is that paid storage is ridiculously cheap.

anderspitman 6y ago

I don't think that's rsync's point. The point is that when someone offers you unlimited storage for a flat rate, your incentives aren't aligned, no matter how good the other party's intentions are. I recommend reading the linked article. It's short and succinct.

nashashmi 6y ago

> If you sell unlimited, you're selling unlimited. It's not an antagonistic relationship. It's only antagonistic when they decide that "Unlimited" needs some asterisks behind it. If the business sells unlimited because it does not want the general consumer to feel constricted with online storage, then it is a benefit for the general consumer. When abusers of business products test the business' abilities, they ruin the business' chance of offering a great product that the consumer can find convenience with. All-you-can eat buffet should be treated as such. But when a bunch of big college guys decide to hang out at an all-you-can eat from 8 am to 8 pm studying and eating, it defeats the product. It defeats the offering for others. And it takes away the experience of going to a place never having to worry about ordering more food than you can eat. This ain't about feeling sorry for the business. This is about feeling sorry for the consumer. It is one abuser that hurts consumer. And that is bad economics for all people.

hellotomyrars 6y ago
I'm somewhat more sympathetic to this position in this case as Google was truly providing Unlimited (until now), essentially. My issue is more that many things are labelled "Unlimited" but they aren't. They aren't even close. Cell Data plans are Unlimited* (Up to 15GB tethered, Up to 25GB at 4G speed, Video limited to 720P) The thrust of my point is that if you say Unlimited, you should mean it. If that means nobody says it, I'm okay with that. They have a business to run and they should do what they need to to make it work. But I don't think they should be able to get away with selling it as "Unlimited" when there are several fine print details to define what that means that are as hidden as possible so that you don't know what they are until you've been parted with your money and run up against the limits.
Xelbair 6y ago
The amount of people who will stay from 8 am to 8pm will be small and should be taken into account when deciding to offer something without limits. You cannot have the cake(advertisement of unlimited offer) and eat the cake(limit the unlimited).