3 ms·
You talk about loopholes three times in this comment. > Because they are using 237 Tb in an unlimited service from Google Google's a trillion dollar company.
by cldellow 3y ago
You talk about loopholes three times in this comment.
> Because they are using 237 Tb in an unlimited service from Google
Google's a trillion dollar company. A popular saying amongst Googlers is "I don't know how to count that low". They're used to big numbers.
I work at a much smaller company. We are not a trillion dollar company. Even we, when offering an unlimited service, ask ourselves: "What happens if someone takes us up on this offer?"
It's not a loophole, it's what he paid for.
It's fine to stop offering an unlimited service. We did! My only beef with Google's conduct here is the 7 days of notice prior to deletion.
I've followed Mike Masnick's reporting in other cases. He seems like an even-handed, fair journalist. I trust that he's not hiding the ball, nor letting the other journalist mislead him about the situation.
- boringg 3y agoYou should question the story a bit more. You think Google only gave 7 days? That seems super suss.
- cldellow 3y agoYes, why wouldn't I think that? As I said, I trust Mike Masnick. I also have past professional experience that leads me to believe Google does what's easiest for Google, not what's best for their customers. In one case, Google suspended a Google Certified Publishing Partner's GAM account for several hours with no notice. The partner had several years of history with Google, did $100M/year of revenue with them, and had an assigned Google rep who did weekly calls with them. Google reactivated the account, but only after significant disruption to the partner. I agree that it's good to be a critical consumer of news, but eh, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably Google being blissfully ignorant of the impact they have on their users.