4 ms·

Sorry, but I call FUD here; Had a very similar experience with google, except with maybe 20tb rather than 200, and no data loss. They gave warnings at least a

Sorry, but I call FUD here; Had a very similar experience with google, except with maybe 20tb rather than 200, and no data loss. They gave warnings at least a year in advance about the transition to google workspace from google for business or however it was called before. It was quite clear that this transition would eventually be mandatory and that it did not include unlimited space for a flat fee. I punted on the transition for as long as possible, and when it finally arrived I temporarily added some accounts until I removed the excess data (mainly old backups I did not need anymore). Nothing in life is unlimited and taking such a promise at face value appears to me as being willfully naive. Relying on such an offer as your main storage is begging for trouble. Expecting this to happen is precisely why I only stored backups there. You don’t need to be an expert to do the math, consider that just to store the data, without any redundancy and without it being constantly spinning would have retailed at at ~ $4K using the cheapest drives (~25 8tb drives), and would have cost them ~$1/h or ~$700 to constantly run at CA electricity prices (~8W idle per drive). And this before redundancy, backups, bandwidth, etc. This is obviously unsustainable and will eventually end. Same goes eg for dropbox, who offered “unlimited” storage for their business plan until fairly recently but now have the same limit of 5tb/acct as Google. Who in their right mind would rely on such an obvious abuse of what was meant by “unlimited” to store the only copy of their life’s work?

capitainenemo 3y ago
Well... they could transition the data to tape with a delay for recovering it, instead of outright deleting it. At that point, storing it would be pretty much free no? Regardless, they promised something, then reneged, with little to no time to handle it. The way they handled it in terms of getting rid of the service is pretty terrible. Also apparently it wasn't his only copy - his others were taken, and now he's about to lose the last one.
- shwouchk 3y ago
  As I and others mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, there was at least a year of warning. At least I was aware of this for about a year out. Tape is cheaper but not free. A quick search[0] quotes it at ~few $ /TB/Yr. Even if we take it at $1 due to G scale, that’s still ~$250/Y to store the archives, roughly what the customer likely paid when it was stored on immediate access media. I agree it would have been nicer of them to store an archive after they stop paying. I disagree that they reneged on their offer - despite being disappointed that the deal ended, would I expect it to be offered forever, especially given the potential for abuse? Of course not. Frankly I’m surprised it lasted this long.
  - capitainenemo 3y ago
    From reading the thread, he got a year of warning about read only, which was fine by him, but far far less on the deletion. I'm getting my information from here though. If you don't mind linking to the relevant part about him getting a year's warning about deletion...
zlg_codes 3y ago
> Nothing in life is unlimited and taking such a promise at face value appears to me as being willfully naive. What are your thoughts on false advertising? What part of "unlimited" in the advertisement should be allowed, if the resource itself is not unlimited?
- shwouchk 3y ago
  As a consumer of paid products (as well as simply human), Im against being lied to by those who sell them. However, advertising is not contract, and I wouldn’t want to hear the legalese of a contract whenever someone tries to sell me something (actually perhaps I would, maybe it would reduce the amount of ads One has to endure, but that’s beside the point as it isn’t a norm outside, perhaps, the medical industry). I don’t consider this to be such a case. Was he capped at how much he would be able to store (other than by allowed bandwidth/traffic)? Was he promised this would last forever? Was he not given a warning a year in advance that this is ending? No resource in this universe is unlimited, so your choice is either to be a pedant about what that means and then raise an uproar when your deliberate misunderstanding of colloquial language breaks, or attempt to understand specifically what is implied by the promise.

capitainenemo 3y ago

Well... they could transition the data to tape with a delay for recovering it, instead of outright deleting it. At that point, storing it would be pretty much free no? Regardless, they promised something, then reneged, with little to no time to handle it. The way they handled it in terms of getting rid of the service is pretty terrible. Also apparently it wasn't his only copy - his others were taken, and now he's about to lose the last one.

shwouchk 3y ago
As I and others mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, there was at least a year of warning. At least I was aware of this for about a year out. Tape is cheaper but not free. A quick search[0] quotes it at ~few $ /TB/Yr. Even if we take it at $1 due to G scale, that’s still ~$250/Y to store the archives, roughly what the customer likely paid when it was stored on immediate access media. I agree it would have been nicer of them to store an archive after they stop paying. I disagree that they reneged on their offer - despite being disappointed that the deal ended, would I expect it to be offered forever, especially given the potential for abuse? Of course not. Frankly I’m surprised it lasted this long.
- capitainenemo 3y ago
  From reading the thread, he got a year of warning about read only, which was fine by him, but far far less on the deletion. I'm getting my information from here though. If you don't mind linking to the relevant part about him getting a year's warning about deletion...

zlg_codes 3y ago

> Nothing in life is unlimited and taking such a promise at face value appears to me as being willfully naive. What are your thoughts on false advertising? What part of "unlimited" in the advertisement should be allowed, if the resource itself is not unlimited?

shwouchk 3y ago
As a consumer of paid products (as well as simply human), Im against being lied to by those who sell them. However, advertising is not contract, and I wouldn’t want to hear the legalese of a contract whenever someone tries to sell me something (actually perhaps I would, maybe it would reduce the amount of ads One has to endure, but that’s beside the point as it isn’t a norm outside, perhaps, the medical industry). I don’t consider this to be such a case. Was he capped at how much he would be able to store (other than by allowed bandwidth/traffic)? Was he promised this would last forever? Was he not given a warning a year in advance that this is ending? No resource in this universe is unlimited, so your choice is either to be a pedant about what that means and then raise an uproar when your deliberate misunderstanding of colloquial language breaks, or attempt to understand specifically what is implied by the promise.