6 ms·

It's like they really think they can get away with offering "unlimited" storage without people taking full advantage of it. Well, yes, it's like a all-you-can-

by caf 5y ago

It's like they really think they can get away with offering "unlimited" storage without people taking full advantage of it. Well, yes, it's like a all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant that nonetheless isn't going to let you bring in a giant cooler and fill it up to take home.

brandon272 5y ago
Love this analogy.
Dylan16807 5y ago
I see it as almost the opposite of a buffet. A really big meal isn't that much bigger than a median meal, but personal data varies a lot. If you look at BackBlaze's histogram, 1/3 of the users are under 100GB and 2/3 are under 500GB. BackBlaze makes a nice profit on those users. But let's say I have just one moderately large drive that's mostly full. Looking at the sales at Best Buy right now, let's say that's a 14TB drive. BackBlaze would lose a ton of money on that, even though it's really hard to argue it's unreasonable in any way, completely unlike a cooler at a buffet.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
No. All-you-can-eat is a simple concept. Everybody understands that. You go there, eat until you're satisfied, and then you pay. There is no lie to be found. Unlimited is a different but equally simple concept with universally accepted meaning: no limits. Companies should not be able to twist this meaning while enjoying the benefits of their deceptive marketing. They can't just lie to their consumers, cash in and then pull the rug from under them later because they violated their assumptions about likely usage patterns. They sold the consumers unlimited usage and assumed they would not use it. Some crazy person actually decided to use the service to the fullest possible extent? They must honor their promises.
- caf 5y ago
  All-you-can-eat is a simple concept. Everybody understands that. No, not everybody does, which is why they have to have signs saying you can't take food home. Unlimited is a different but equally simple concept with universally accepted meaning: no limits. Companies should not be able to twist this meaning while enjoying the benefits of their deceptive marketing. "Unlimited backup (of data stored on the internal storage of a single personal-use laptop or desktop running Windows or MacOS X)" is not fundamentally different from "Bottomless coffee (consumed by one person only in a single visit)" or "A year's supply of fuel (really a $3000 balance fuel card)". There's a "reasonable person" standard here, and the man on the Clapham Omnibus knows that these sorts of offers have fine print which it behoves you to read.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > they have to have signs saying you can't take food home I don't understand how it's possible to misunderstand all-you-can-eat buffets. The words correctly describe the service: you can eat there until you're literally full. There is no "unlimited" anywhere. Those people must be acting in bad faith. > There's a "reasonable person" standard here It's perfectly reasonable to assume unlimited really means unlimited and not some industry-specific, lawyer version of the word. > these sorts of offers have fine print which it behoves you to read The presence of these hidden "fine prints" is proof of deceptive advertising. This is why marketing cannot be trusted and why consumer protection laws really ought to put an end to these industry practices. Nobody really reads or understands these terms. It's not like people will hire lawyers to analyze the legalese for them. This is not a deal between equal parties, consumers are severely disadvantaged. Just force them to deliver what they promised. They'll stop promsing soon enough.
    - caf 5y ago
      This is not a deal between equal parties, consumers are severely disadvantaged. Just force them to deliver what they promised. They'll stop promsing soon enough. No-one is being "severely disadvantaged". The unsophisticated users backing up their regular PCs are getting exactly what they paid for - a backup of their PC without having to even know what a terabyte is - and the /r/datahoarder types with a rack of JBODs full of every TV series ever made knew full well that they weren't going to get away with backing that up on a $7/month consumer single PC plan. In the event that one among the latter really was that credulous, sure, give 'em their 7 bucks back and now they're square.

by caf 5y ago

brandon272 5y ago

Love this analogy.

Dylan16807 5y ago

I see it as almost the opposite of a buffet. A really big meal isn't that much bigger than a median meal, but personal data varies a lot. If you look at BackBlaze's histogram, 1/3 of the users are under 100GB and 2/3 are under 500GB. BackBlaze makes a nice profit on those users. But let's say I have just one moderately large drive that's mostly full. Looking at the sales at Best Buy right now, let's say that's a 14TB drive. BackBlaze would lose a ton of money on that, even though it's really hard to argue it's unreasonable in any way, completely unlike a cooler at a buffet.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

No. All-you-can-eat is a simple concept. Everybody understands that. You go there, eat until you're satisfied, and then you pay. There is no lie to be found. Unlimited is a different but equally simple concept with universally accepted meaning: no limits. Companies should not be able to twist this meaning while enjoying the benefits of their deceptive marketing. They can't just lie to their consumers, cash in and then pull the rug from under them later because they violated their assumptions about likely usage patterns. They sold the consumers unlimited usage and assumed they would not use it. Some crazy person actually decided to use the service to the fullest possible extent? They must honor their promises.

caf 5y ago
All-you-can-eat is a simple concept. Everybody understands that. No, not everybody does, which is why they have to have signs saying you can't take food home. Unlimited is a different but equally simple concept with universally accepted meaning: no limits. Companies should not be able to twist this meaning while enjoying the benefits of their deceptive marketing. "Unlimited backup (of data stored on the internal storage of a single personal-use laptop or desktop running Windows or MacOS X)" is not fundamentally different from "Bottomless coffee (consumed by one person only in a single visit)" or "A year's supply of fuel (really a $3000 balance fuel card)". There's a "reasonable person" standard here, and the man on the Clapham Omnibus knows that these sorts of offers have fine print which it behoves you to read.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > they have to have signs saying you can't take food home I don't understand how it's possible to misunderstand all-you-can-eat buffets. The words correctly describe the service: you can eat there until you're literally full. There is no "unlimited" anywhere. Those people must be acting in bad faith. > There's a "reasonable person" standard here It's perfectly reasonable to assume unlimited really means unlimited and not some industry-specific, lawyer version of the word. > these sorts of offers have fine print which it behoves you to read The presence of these hidden "fine prints" is proof of deceptive advertising. This is why marketing cannot be trusted and why consumer protection laws really ought to put an end to these industry practices. Nobody really reads or understands these terms. It's not like people will hire lawyers to analyze the legalese for them. This is not a deal between equal parties, consumers are severely disadvantaged. Just force them to deliver what they promised. They'll stop promsing soon enough.
  - caf 5y ago
    This is not a deal between equal parties, consumers are severely disadvantaged. Just force them to deliver what they promised. They'll stop promsing soon enough. No-one is being "severely disadvantaged". The unsophisticated users backing up their regular PCs are getting exactly what they paid for - a backup of their PC without having to even know what a terabyte is - and the /r/datahoarder types with a rack of JBODs full of every TV series ever made knew full well that they weren't going to get away with backing that up on a $7/month consumer single PC plan. In the event that one among the latter really was that credulous, sure, give 'em their 7 bucks back and now they're square.