4 ms·
There is a commonly and widespread accepted definition of the term "unlimited" If anyone uses it outside of that definition, it needs to be disclosed upfront. I
by Grimeton 2y ago
There is a commonly and widespread accepted definition of the term "unlimited" If anyone uses it outside of that definition, it needs to be disclosed upfront. If that didn't happen, then it's "unlimited" as in the common widespread definition of the term.
If you change the definition later, then you have changed your mind and look for a loophole to f people over.
That's all there is to it.
They said unlimited and now they're not keeping their word.
- etrautmann 2y agoSure, but if something seems too good to be true then it probably is. As an academic with hundreds of TB of data, I personally wouldn’t assume that some company would actually provide unlimited storage in perpetuity when the costs are clear and obvious.
- Grimeton 2y agoOf course I would. It's Google! They can do it! And obviously they did. How else do we explain people with petabytes of data on Google's drives when the term "unlimited" meant "30GB"?
- etrautmann 2y agoMy main point is that the costs of storage are fairly well known. One can estimate the cost to google of provisioning the datacenter class storage that a user with PB of data is using, and if your estimate of the situation is that it seems like that arrangement is likely to continue, then great. In my estimate, that seems unlikely unless there's a business case to be made for google (there certainly are some, like building familiarity in the system for academic trainees who may then go start startups or purchase storage from positions in industry).
- teo_zero 2y agoIf there's a place in the world I would expect to not have capacity issue, that's Google. If I were a judge, I wouldn't rule it's unreasonable for users to assume that it can store as many data as they produce, after having committed and advertised to do so.