14 ms·

A small business likely would - at least at the customers expense. A medium size business might if you could talk to a reasonable person in the right department

by tmpz22 3y ago

A small business likely would - at least at the customers expense. A medium size business might if you could talk to a reasonable person in the right department and they had the time to do it. Its beyond the ability of a large company. This is what people are actually angry about. As a company gets more and more successful (size/revenue) it becomes less capable at going above and beyond for the majority of their customers. And we live in a world of increasingly large hyper consolidated companies. It feels like its only going to get worse from here. IMO thats where the legitimate angst is. Its going to get worse.

jdiez17 3y ago
You nailed it. People don't necessarily hate capitalism, companies or business owners. However, this late stage capitalism with huge faceless companies that are unable to care for people, seem to be above the law and are just profit-extraction machines is quite a trip.
sangnoir 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- anonymoushn 3y ago
  He was paying though?
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Not for the last several months, not for nearly 250TB of data.
- falcor84 3y ago
  I haven't seen any buffet advertize itself as offering "unlimited" food, but rather they say "all-you-can-eat" and then typically clearly clarify on the door and the front desk something like "on our premises, in under 2 hours". Google should have been smart enough to not say "unlimited" if they don't mean it.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    I wonder if TOS had some clause on reasonable use. Or spelled out the timeframe they can terminate the contact.
- rcoveson 3y ago
  The implication your analogy is sneaking in is that there is a common-sense amount of cloud storage a user might use, in the same way that there is a common-sense amount for somebody to eat. It's a poor analogy. There are cloud storage users in every order-of-magnitude bracket from 10^0 to 10^15 bytes used. S3 is not like Chuck-a-Rama. A businessperson that attempts to treat them like they are similar will be forced to make a U-turn and lose some face in the process. These types of businesspeople should be fired urgently and with prejudice.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    In all free anything people who over-consume threaten the model for everyone. I hate that the end result is that nobody should have it. We're all subsidizing the extreme users and we should desire that those customers are fired. All those rules at a buffet are just codifying ethics because the business has learned that it's stupid to trust people.
    - TremendousJudge 3y ago
      You are blaming the users for taking "unlimited" literally, while it was the company who said the plan was "unlimited" in the first place. Nobody forced them to market it that way. If they know 99.9% of users are fine with 1Tb, then they should sell them that and not lie in their marketing.
      - threatofrain 3y ago
        Yes, I'm blaming the kinds of users who persuade buffets to make up hostile and unpleasant rules for people. If firing a small % of users changes the equation for everyone then customers should be all for it. When customers exploit any concept of free, even the bathroom in a fast food restaurant, that starts a culture where businesses give you a code so you can pee. You can call this being up-front or honest, but I call it the depletion of goodwill.
        rcoveson 3y ago
- fauigerzigerk 3y ago
  >Not for a freeloader who was in the top 0.1% of usage without paying a dime. This is a very unfair characterisation. He paid for an enterprise plan that was specifically targeted at enterprises with exceptionally high storage needs. We don't know how much storage other enterprises in that target group were using. Comparing it with typical storage requirements of consumers makes absolutely no sense. Also, it's not very interesting if he was in the top 0.1% because someone always is. That doesn't make it freeloading.
zlg_codes 3y ago
You're right, and it's paradoxical. Companies with poor customer service should be taking hits in the stock market and in the public eye, but Comcast is still around... The guy in TFA should be a warning to others: you cannot trust other machines to handle your data responsibly. They'll turn on you and demand a ransom when it's convenient. Self-host, and own your infrastructure.

by tmpz22 3y ago

jdiez17 3y ago

You nailed it. People don't necessarily hate capitalism, companies or business owners. However, this late stage capitalism with huge faceless companies that are unable to care for people, seem to be above the law and are just profit-extraction machines is quite a trip.

sangnoir 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
anonymoushn 3y ago
He was paying though?
- vel0city 3y ago
  Not for the last several months, not for nearly 250TB of data.
falcor84 3y ago
I haven't seen any buffet advertize itself as offering "unlimited" food, but rather they say "all-you-can-eat" and then typically clearly clarify on the door and the front desk something like "on our premises, in under 2 hours". Google should have been smart enough to not say "unlimited" if they don't mean it.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  I wonder if TOS had some clause on reasonable use. Or spelled out the timeframe they can terminate the contact.
rcoveson 3y ago
The implication your analogy is sneaking in is that there is a common-sense amount of cloud storage a user might use, in the same way that there is a common-sense amount for somebody to eat. It's a poor analogy. There are cloud storage users in every order-of-magnitude bracket from 10^0 to 10^15 bytes used. S3 is not like Chuck-a-Rama. A businessperson that attempts to treat them like they are similar will be forced to make a U-turn and lose some face in the process. These types of businesspeople should be fired urgently and with prejudice.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  In all free anything people who over-consume threaten the model for everyone. I hate that the end result is that nobody should have it. We're all subsidizing the extreme users and we should desire that those customers are fired. All those rules at a buffet are just codifying ethics because the business has learned that it's stupid to trust people.
  - TremendousJudge 3y ago
    You are blaming the users for taking "unlimited" literally, while it was the company who said the plan was "unlimited" in the first place. Nobody forced them to market it that way. If they know 99.9% of users are fine with 1Tb, then they should sell them that and not lie in their marketing.
    - threatofrain 3y ago
      Yes, I'm blaming the kinds of users who persuade buffets to make up hostile and unpleasant rules for people. If firing a small % of users changes the equation for everyone then customers should be all for it. When customers exploit any concept of free, even the bathroom in a fast food restaurant, that starts a culture where businesses give you a code so you can pee. You can call this being up-front or honest, but I call it the depletion of goodwill.
      - rcoveson 3y ago
fauigerzigerk 3y ago
>Not for a freeloader who was in the top 0.1% of usage without paying a dime. This is a very unfair characterisation. He paid for an enterprise plan that was specifically targeted at enterprises with exceptionally high storage needs. We don't know how much storage other enterprises in that target group were using. Comparing it with typical storage requirements of consumers makes absolutely no sense. Also, it's not very interesting if he was in the top 0.1% because someone always is. That doesn't make it freeloading.

zlg_codes 3y ago

You're right, and it's paradoxical. Companies with poor customer service should be taking hits in the stock market and in the public eye, but Comcast is still around... The guy in TFA should be a warning to others: you cannot trust other machines to handle your data responsibly. They'll turn on you and demand a ransom when it's convenient. Self-host, and own your infrastructure.