6 ms·

It appears that he had a Workspace account which offered “unlimited” storage for a time, predicated on the account type being multiuser businesses or education,

by tky 3y ago

It appears that he had a Workspace account which offered “unlimited” storage for a time, predicated on the account type being multiuser businesses or education, with a per-seat fee. Google phased out the unlimited storage awhile ago (over a year) after people discovered a loophole where paying for one account still provided unlimited storage. Predictable abuse followed (see /r/datahoarders). While I’m sympathetic to the user and skeptical of Google’s commitment to their customers, this doesn’t appear to be a straightforward case of someone getting Scroogled. If he were paying for the consumed storage as a standard Drive customer, this wouldn’t be happening.

Nicksil 3y ago
>If he were paying for the consumed storage as a standard Drive customer, this wouldn’t be happening. >Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time”
- E39M5S62 3y ago
  "a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective.
  - Nicksil 3y ago
    >"a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective. You've missed the point. It's the fact that this guy did pay for the services.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      As far as I can tell, they did not pay for an "unlimited storage forever" service. They paid for an "unlimited storage this month for $X" service. Eventually Google stopped offering that deal, and he continued storing his data as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well.
      - Nicksil 3y ago
        >as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well. Why do you think he thought this?
        jsnell 3y ago
        Because he stopped paying for the service of unlimited storage for this month (as that service was no longer offered), didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal, and expected for it to be retained indefinitely?
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        I think you need context. Google stopped offering unlimted storage, the journalists was raided by the FBI some 7 months ago, and during that legal dispute he was occupied until Google gave a 7 day ultimatim. He already did have data backed up, and it was seized by the government because Fox News or Kayne West really didn't want that news page (live on a URL already) "leaked" or whatever.
        Nicksil 3y ago
        >didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal Why would this be considered? What if he didn't want to migrate 200+ TB of data and just decided to stay where he's at, continuing to pay Google a lot of money? >expected for it to be retained indefinitely? For as long as he pays for the service, right?
        jsnell 3y ago
        As per the article, he hasn't been paying for the service for like six months. And he was never paying "a lot of money" for this. He was paying like 1% the going rate, and for every month that he paid that he did get the promised unlimited storage.
        Nicksil 3y ago
    - selectodude 3y ago
      Google is wrong for ever offering unlimited storage. However if everybody is charging $20,000+ per year and Google is charging $1000, you gotta know that you’re living on borrowed time. Even backblaze, with their low margins and commodity hard drives charges $18k. The concept of counterparty risk strikes again.
cedilla 3y ago
Google offered "as much storage as you need" for the Workspace account, without attaching a condition on a required number of seats. It's not a loophole if a customer takes them up on the offer. I'm usually sympathetic with businesses who failed to appreciate how much power very few power users really have, but this is Google we're talking about. Their sales and legal department is larger than 90% of tech companies. This was their mistake and their mistake only.
- justrealist 3y ago
  This is like getting kicked out of McDonalds for ordering a small order of french fries and instead eating 400 ketchup packets. Things are free when people don't abuse it. Just be normal. Jesus.
  - Nicksil 3y ago
    >Things are free when people don't abuse it. Just be normal. Jesus. Well, no, things are free until they stop being free. Who gets to decide what "normal" means.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      Life would be miserable if every restaurant had to parcel out individual sugar packets just because 1/100 people decided to abuse it and take them all home. Why do you want everything to be financialized? The world works better when people can use small conveniences non-abusively.
      - Nicksil 3y ago
        >Life would be miserable if every restaurant had to parcel out individual sugar packets just because 1/100 people decided to abuse it and take them all home. OK >Why do you want everything to be financialized? Where did I say this? >The world works better when people can use small conveniences non-abusively. OK Did you just not want to address anything in the comment you replied to?
    - 3y ago

by tky 3y ago

Nicksil 3y ago

>If he were paying for the consumed storage as a standard Drive customer, this wouldn’t be happening. >Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time”

E39M5S62 3y ago
"a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective.
- Nicksil 3y ago
  >"a lot of money" and "a long time" are subjective. You've missed the point. It's the fact that this guy did pay for the services.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    As far as I can tell, they did not pay for an "unlimited storage forever" service. They paid for an "unlimited storage this month for $X" service. Eventually Google stopped offering that deal, and he continued storing his data as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well.
    - Nicksil 3y ago
      >as if the payments for data storage in the past would entitle him to store the data indefinitely into the future as well. Why do you think he thought this?
      - jsnell 3y ago
        Because he stopped paying for the service of unlimited storage for this month (as that service was no longer offered), didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal, and expected for it to be retained indefinitely?
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        I think you need context. Google stopped offering unlimted storage, the journalists was raided by the FBI some 7 months ago, and during that legal dispute he was occupied until Google gave a 7 day ultimatim. He already did have data backed up, and it was seized by the government because Fox News or Kayne West really didn't want that news page (live on a URL already) "leaked" or whatever.
        Nicksil 3y ago
        >didn't migrate the data to somebody offering a better deal Why would this be considered? What if he didn't want to migrate 200+ TB of data and just decided to stay where he's at, continuing to pay Google a lot of money? >expected for it to be retained indefinitely? For as long as he pays for the service, right?
        jsnell 3y ago
        As per the article, he hasn't been paying for the service for like six months. And he was never paying "a lot of money" for this. He was paying like 1% the going rate, and for every month that he paid that he did get the promised unlimited storage.
        Nicksil 3y ago
  - selectodude 3y ago
    Google is wrong for ever offering unlimited storage. However if everybody is charging $20,000+ per year and Google is charging $1000, you gotta know that you’re living on borrowed time. Even backblaze, with their low margins and commodity hard drives charges $18k. The concept of counterparty risk strikes again.

cedilla 3y ago

Google offered "as much storage as you need" for the Workspace account, without attaching a condition on a required number of seats. It's not a loophole if a customer takes them up on the offer. I'm usually sympathetic with businesses who failed to appreciate how much power very few power users really have, but this is Google we're talking about. Their sales and legal department is larger than 90% of tech companies. This was their mistake and their mistake only.

justrealist 3y ago
This is like getting kicked out of McDonalds for ordering a small order of french fries and instead eating 400 ketchup packets. Things are free when people don't abuse it. Just be normal. Jesus.
- Nicksil 3y ago
  >Things are free when people don't abuse it. Just be normal. Jesus. Well, no, things are free until they stop being free. Who gets to decide what "normal" means.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Life would be miserable if every restaurant had to parcel out individual sugar packets just because 1/100 people decided to abuse it and take them all home. Why do you want everything to be financialized? The world works better when people can use small conveniences non-abusively.
    - Nicksil 3y ago
      >Life would be miserable if every restaurant had to parcel out individual sugar packets just because 1/100 people decided to abuse it and take them all home. OK >Why do you want everything to be financialized? Where did I say this? >The world works better when people can use small conveniences non-abusively. OK Did you just not want to address anything in the comment you replied to?
  - 3y ago