4 ms·
If you can't afford to run something forever, you probably shouldn't advertise it as free forever. That's misleading. I disagree with your assertion that people
by beaconstudios 5y ago
If you can't afford to run something forever, you probably shouldn't advertise it as free forever. That's misleading. I disagree with your assertion that people who were misled by this are at fault for being gullible.
- fao_ 5y ago> If you can't afford to run something forever, you probably shouldn't advertise it as free forever. Sorry, what do you mean by "forever" in this instance? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? 500 years? What if you start out being able to afford it but suddenly lose most of your funding overnight as result of bad press, and then have a court case on top of that? What if millions more people are using the internet and blogging than ever before? What if file sizes suddenly inflate to the point that what was tens of thousands of images, is now only a hundred images? The difference between 2002 and 2022, technology-wise, is extremely vast. 20 years is a very long time for a company providing a web service to have lasted. This really doesn't hold up on any level, the more questions you ask about the conditions of "forever", and the more you bring reality into the whole thing, huh.
- beaconstudios 5y agoThese are questions that should be directed at the company promising "forever", not me for challenging that promise. Actually, maybe not these sarcastic and pedantic questions, but ones similar to these.