3 ms·

what I want to know: why would storage prices increase when storage costs continue to plummet (and network ingress costs remain cheap due to asymmetric use vs s

by asah 6y ago

what I want to know: why would storage prices increase when storage costs continue to plummet (and network ingress costs remain cheap due to asymmetric use vs serving) spitballing... - gphotos was free when google wanted the data for training algorithms. They now have the data they need and it's become a cost center. Given Android integration, that amount is substantial. - the paid plans are underperforming, and this seemed like an easy way to catch up. - the overall google "fleet" is facing capacity pressure across storage-intensive apps (e.g. gmail ?) and photos seemed like the easier solution, i.e. start charging and people will use less storage. - mobile device camera resolution may be growing faster than storage costs are decreasing ? - online photo hosting also requires serving the images (not just "backup") and users can't wrap their heads around a split charge for serving ? - online storage costs are now dominated by the cost of power, real estate etc ? but as drives double in capacity, their power/etc costs should be halved as well... thoughts?

wmeredith 6y ago
Much like when you pay for a good meal, the majority of what you're paying for is labor. Hardware is cheap. IT departments are not.
- asah 6y ago
  Right. But storage costs are per-GB, so as disks get denser then all costs drop per GB.
mattlondon 6y ago
I expect that the issue is more likely that 99.999% of people are using the service are doing so "normally", but the 0.001% who are not are using disproportionally large amounts of data/abusing the service at the detriment of others etc. I have no doubt that there are people out there doing shady/dodgy things to abuse the free "unlimited" storage and pumping in huge huge huge amounts of data or have hacked up some crazy system to use it as some sort of hacked-up rsync, using it for bulk image classification instead of spin up their own service etc etc etc Charging a relatively small fee to high users while leaving it free for the vast majority seems like a fair way of trying to slow down abuse to me - I think they did the same thing with the Google Maps APIs a year or two ago (i.e. turn down the free tier significantly and make it cost a small-but-not-zero amount to stop people abusing it) I currently pay £1.33 a month for more storage - so like half a starbucks coffee. Seems fair to me considering how many years of photos I have in there.
- Markoff 6y ago
  or you could just set limit which would be enough for 99.99% users and charge the people who don't find it sufficient but 15GB is what, 1000-3000 photos at best nowadays with zero videos, with videos it will be gone within days/weeks I would more understand if they would set up 1000 photos monthly limit instead size limit btw. I don't use Google photos, so I don't really care what they offer

by asah 6y ago

wmeredith 6y ago

Much like when you pay for a good meal, the majority of what you're paying for is labor. Hardware is cheap. IT departments are not.

asah 6y ago
Right. But storage costs are per-GB, so as disks get denser then all costs drop per GB.

mattlondon 6y ago

I expect that the issue is more likely that 99.999% of people are using the service are doing so "normally", but the 0.001% who are not are using disproportionally large amounts of data/abusing the service at the detriment of others etc. I have no doubt that there are people out there doing shady/dodgy things to abuse the free "unlimited" storage and pumping in huge huge huge amounts of data or have hacked up some crazy system to use it as some sort of hacked-up rsync, using it for bulk image classification instead of spin up their own service etc etc etc Charging a relatively small fee to high users while leaving it free for the vast majority seems like a fair way of trying to slow down abuse to me - I think they did the same thing with the Google Maps APIs a year or two ago (i.e. turn down the free tier significantly and make it cost a small-but-not-zero amount to stop people abusing it) I currently pay £1.33 a month for more storage - so like half a starbucks coffee. Seems fair to me considering how many years of photos I have in there.

Markoff 6y ago
or you could just set limit which would be enough for 99.99% users and charge the people who don't find it sufficient but 15GB is what, 1000-3000 photos at best nowadays with zero videos, with videos it will be gone within days/weeks I would more understand if they would set up 1000 photos monthly limit instead size limit btw. I don't use Google photos, so I don't really care what they offer