4 ms·

Sure - the title is crafted for rhetorical effect not literal accuracy. But it's comparable, in the sense that the "returns" for earlier customers (ongoing pro

Sure - the title is crafted for rhetorical effect not literal accuracy. But it's comparable, in the sense that the "returns" for earlier customers (ongoing provision of storage service) are funded out of the contributions of later new customers, and when the supply of new customers runs out, the returns can no longer be funded and the system collapses. Edit: Also not that the phrase "is a Ponzi scheme" is often used in opinion pieces to describe all kinds of business and economic models that are not literal Ponzi schemes: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+a+ponzi+scheme%22+-what https://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+a+ponzi+scheme%22+-wha...

giantg2 6y ago
I think accuracy is important. If an author isn't trustworthy or correct on this, then why should we listen to their other information in good faith? I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right?
- tomhoward 6y ago
  It's a metaphor or analogy, which is a perfectly commonplace and legitimate form of argumentation. > I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right? Well, no; if it's an unlimited usage plan, then there's no more revenue from existing users, but they become more costly to support as time goes on, making the system ever more unsustainable and destined for collapse.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It's only legitimate if it's accurate and presented as an analogy. The title of "Unlimited is a Ponzi Scheme" is not worded to be an analogy and isn't accurate. "there's no more revenue from existing users" That's not what the article says. Existing users can create revenue. The cost could outweigh the revenue depending on the amount stored. If it were solely about new user adoption, then it wasn't presented properly in the article: "They make money inversely proportional to how recent you stored the thing."
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  It fits the flow model of a ponzi scheme: At each future stage a growth of fresh input is required to make up for a growing backlog of past transactions. Since the world is finite, the available growth must come to an end while the back log does not. (A possible disagreement with this is if expected media quality/size is growing in size similar to Moore's law.) The author makes their own distinctions in the article, but I don't see how you could choose a more appropriate title without assuming a lot of pre-existing knowledge in the audience.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Perhaps you can correct the definition on wikipedia then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme A more appropriate title could be "Unlimited Data Storage is Dependent on New User Adoption". No reason to use a title that doesn't fit and is just sensationalized marketing.
    - foolmeonce 6y ago
      Wikipedia's definition is great but is naturally focused on the social details rather than its nature as an inherently devolving system of resource management. Still it's coverage of how they fall apart is good AFA the system problems. I suppose I should update more wikipedia entries, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree References an early example of such a problem article: "Binary Tree". An outrageous use of metaphor that should clearly have been named "Data is in no way an oak".
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Nice strawman argument. The word "binary" is a modifier of the word "tree". Anyone with a basic understanding of English knows that a binary tree is different from an oak tree. The modifier in "ponzi scheme" is "ponzi". The very definition stated that it is a scheme related to financial investment and returns, which doesn't fit the situation in the article. If you compare the binary tree and ponzi scheme examples, you will find them quite similar. You have base word (tree/scheme) and a modifier word (binary/ponzi). So your tree example is actually a great point supporting my argument - this may be a scheme, but it's not a ponzi scheme.
- imtringued 6y ago
  The problem is that there is no overarching word that describes this class of "scheme". There are pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, matrix schemes, unlimited schemes and so on. Everyone uses an example of this class of scheme and then say that X is "ponzi scheme like" instead of saying that X is an instance of "circular fraud" where "circular fraud" is a term for this class of scheme I just made up on the spot. Just invent a word for this instead of complaining. >f an author isn't trustworthy or correct on this, then why should we listen to their other information in good faith? The author is correct because of the word "like" in the title.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Others here have suggested “bait and switch” which, IMO, is a more apt descriptor
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The word "like" was not there previously, nor is it on the title of the article.

giantg2 6y ago

I think accuracy is important. If an author isn't trustworthy or correct on this, then why should we listen to their other information in good faith? I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right?

tomhoward 6y ago
It's a metaphor or analogy, which is a perfectly commonplace and legitimate form of argumentation. > I think it's not just new users. It's also new content/files. Existing users uploading more pictures can also generate revenue, right? Well, no; if it's an unlimited usage plan, then there's no more revenue from existing users, but they become more costly to support as time goes on, making the system ever more unsustainable and destined for collapse.
- giantg2 6y ago
  It's only legitimate if it's accurate and presented as an analogy. The title of "Unlimited is a Ponzi Scheme" is not worded to be an analogy and isn't accurate. "there's no more revenue from existing users" That's not what the article says. Existing users can create revenue. The cost could outweigh the revenue depending on the amount stored. If it were solely about new user adoption, then it wasn't presented properly in the article: "They make money inversely proportional to how recent you stored the thing."
foolmeonce 6y ago
It fits the flow model of a ponzi scheme: At each future stage a growth of fresh input is required to make up for a growing backlog of past transactions. Since the world is finite, the available growth must come to an end while the back log does not. (A possible disagreement with this is if expected media quality/size is growing in size similar to Moore's law.) The author makes their own distinctions in the article, but I don't see how you could choose a more appropriate title without assuming a lot of pre-existing knowledge in the audience.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Perhaps you can correct the definition on wikipedia then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme A more appropriate title could be "Unlimited Data Storage is Dependent on New User Adoption". No reason to use a title that doesn't fit and is just sensationalized marketing.
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    Wikipedia's definition is great but is naturally focused on the social details rather than its nature as an inherently devolving system of resource management. Still it's coverage of how they fall apart is good AFA the system problems. I suppose I should update more wikipedia entries, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree References an early example of such a problem article: "Binary Tree". An outrageous use of metaphor that should clearly have been named "Data is in no way an oak".
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Nice strawman argument. The word "binary" is a modifier of the word "tree". Anyone with a basic understanding of English knows that a binary tree is different from an oak tree. The modifier in "ponzi scheme" is "ponzi". The very definition stated that it is a scheme related to financial investment and returns, which doesn't fit the situation in the article. If you compare the binary tree and ponzi scheme examples, you will find them quite similar. You have base word (tree/scheme) and a modifier word (binary/ponzi). So your tree example is actually a great point supporting my argument - this may be a scheme, but it's not a ponzi scheme.
imtringued 6y ago
The problem is that there is no overarching word that describes this class of "scheme". There are pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, matrix schemes, unlimited schemes and so on. Everyone uses an example of this class of scheme and then say that X is "ponzi scheme like" instead of saying that X is an instance of "circular fraud" where "circular fraud" is a term for this class of scheme I just made up on the spot. Just invent a word for this instead of complaining. >f an author isn't trustworthy or correct on this, then why should we listen to their other information in good faith? The author is correct because of the word "like" in the title.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Others here have suggested “bait and switch” which, IMO, is a more apt descriptor
- giantg2 6y ago
  The word "like" was not there previously, nor is it on the title of the article.