4 ms·

If Microsoft cutting cost by limiting storage capacity can be construed to be done for environmental reasons, then why can't Google lay-offs be construed simila

If Microsoft cutting cost by limiting storage capacity can be construed to be done for environmental reasons, then why can't Google lay-offs be construed similarly? This is not changing the mix of energy production, it is not changing the supply of energy, it just changes the demand. Lay-offs similarly also reduce the demand on energy since people have less money to buy things that are energy intensive to produce, and have less money to pay their electricity bills and fuel. Sure, in the long term this move by MSFT may reduce new energy producing capacity coming online, but so will lay-offs, and pay cuts, and recessions, depressions, famine and war. I don't think it's bad that MSFT is cutting cost in this way, it makes them a more efficient business, but this is being done for cost-cutting, not because MSFT cares deeply about the environment, it just so happens that money is a proxy for energy (i.e. the ability to generate entropy) and most cost-cutting will also reduce energy demand regardless of the nature of that cost-cutting.

robertlagrant 3y ago
What is the point you're making? MSFT don't care about the environment because they're choosing reducing storage energy usage over famine and war?
- schiffern 3y ago
  Point is almost all cost saving measures can be rebranded as "environmental." It's just a PR trick.
  - nh23423fefe 3y ago
    When advocates lie about climate impact, charlatans see an opportunity to lie as well.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      Let's not shift blame. Charlatans gonna charlatan, regardless of whatever misdeeds you perceive "advocates" have done.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  They are choosing cost reduction. If this increased cost, they would not have done it. So the primary driver is not the environmental benefits, it's the cost. I think what bothers me more is that people are so easily deceived by this. Again, cost-cutting is great, especially when it can be done with no impact to consumers and employees, because those are humans I care about. In this case, it is at the expense of consumers, the people who are affected are getting less for their money. Shrinkflation if you will, but because of the corporate, bureaucratic and dysfunctional mess between the people paying and the people choosing MSFT — and the way MSFT operates, which is by bundling basically everything but the kitchen sink — there really is no practical way for the consumer to shop around with their money for a better cloud storage deal. MSFT could still be the most inefficient storage, cloud storage space from competitors could be much more energy efficient for the same amount of GB — but the storage will stay with MSFT because they bundle it with everything else. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of cloud storage or the carbon footprint of cloud storage. It has to do with giving people less value for the money that MSFT gets, and it works out because MSFT has done everything they can to ensure that there is no way this will result in revenue reduction. From a shareholder perspective, this is great, you should give customers the least amount you can for their money so you can maximize profits, but if you tie this together with the immoral business practices of MSFT it really becomes very detrimental to society, the environment, and consumers.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I agree the reason given is marketing, but that's 2024 for you. I think that only approving of environmental things if they cost you is a bit perverse, though. This is lower-hanging fruit. Why not take it?
    - flanked-evergl 3y ago
      Would this not amount to being happy about all cost reductions at the expense of a customer? Say I get less laundry detergent for the same price, should I be happy for the opportunity to wash my clothes less often to not pay more money to the manufacturer, as it is a lower hanging fruit? To MSFT there is no lower hanging fruit to more revenue than reducing what they give a customer while charging the same amount of money, so no I'm not particularly impressed that MSFT is stiffing their customers. I'm also not impressed that MSFT manages to do that while also getting cheers because they figured out the right words to say to get people on their side. To me, that is deeply unethical behaviour.
Erratic6576 3y ago
“Our business footprint is 300 tons of CO2 a year. We are shutting down our operations worldwide in order to protect the people from the future. Thanks for all the BSOD”
euroderf 3y ago
> If Microsoft cutting cost by limiting storage capacity can be construed to be done for environmental reasons, then why can't Google lay-offs be construed similarly? Excess employees will be mulched.

robertlagrant 3y ago

What is the point you're making? MSFT don't care about the environment because they're choosing reducing storage energy usage over famine and war?

schiffern 3y ago
Point is almost all cost saving measures can be rebranded as "environmental." It's just a PR trick.
- nh23423fefe 3y ago
  When advocates lie about climate impact, charlatans see an opportunity to lie as well.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    Let's not shift blame. Charlatans gonna charlatan, regardless of whatever misdeeds you perceive "advocates" have done.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
They are choosing cost reduction. If this increased cost, they would not have done it. So the primary driver is not the environmental benefits, it's the cost. I think what bothers me more is that people are so easily deceived by this. Again, cost-cutting is great, especially when it can be done with no impact to consumers and employees, because those are humans I care about. In this case, it is at the expense of consumers, the people who are affected are getting less for their money. Shrinkflation if you will, but because of the corporate, bureaucratic and dysfunctional mess between the people paying and the people choosing MSFT — and the way MSFT operates, which is by bundling basically everything but the kitchen sink — there really is no practical way for the consumer to shop around with their money for a better cloud storage deal. MSFT could still be the most inefficient storage, cloud storage space from competitors could be much more energy efficient for the same amount of GB — but the storage will stay with MSFT because they bundle it with everything else. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of cloud storage or the carbon footprint of cloud storage. It has to do with giving people less value for the money that MSFT gets, and it works out because MSFT has done everything they can to ensure that there is no way this will result in revenue reduction. From a shareholder perspective, this is great, you should give customers the least amount you can for their money so you can maximize profits, but if you tie this together with the immoral business practices of MSFT it really becomes very detrimental to society, the environment, and consumers.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I agree the reason given is marketing, but that's 2024 for you. I think that only approving of environmental things if they cost you is a bit perverse, though. This is lower-hanging fruit. Why not take it?
  - flanked-evergl 3y ago
    Would this not amount to being happy about all cost reductions at the expense of a customer? Say I get less laundry detergent for the same price, should I be happy for the opportunity to wash my clothes less often to not pay more money to the manufacturer, as it is a lower hanging fruit? To MSFT there is no lower hanging fruit to more revenue than reducing what they give a customer while charging the same amount of money, so no I'm not particularly impressed that MSFT is stiffing their customers. I'm also not impressed that MSFT manages to do that while also getting cheers because they figured out the right words to say to get people on their side. To me, that is deeply unethical behaviour.

Erratic6576 3y ago

“Our business footprint is 300 tons of CO2 a year. We are shutting down our operations worldwide in order to protect the people from the future. Thanks for all the BSOD”

euroderf 3y ago

> If Microsoft cutting cost by limiting storage capacity can be construed to be done for environmental reasons, then why can't Google lay-offs be construed similarly? Excess employees will be mulched.