3 ms·
> abused used > Unlimited offers have always implicit limits which every adult understands. No, you're defending straightforward lying. Why should people hav
by cal85 2y ago
> abused
used
> Unlimited offers have always implicit limits which every adult understands.
No, you're defending straightforward lying. Why should people have to figure out there's an "implicit limit" when they see the word "unlimited" with no asterisk/qualifier?
Companies have the option to not lie about this. There is no need for them to use the word unlimited. If it's truly impossible them to offer anything as truly unlimited, then OK, in that case the word "unlimited" should not appear on anyone's advertising (at least not without an asterisk). What's the problem with that?
- Barrin92 2y agoNo, I'm defending common sense. If you're going to insist they technically said 'unlimited' they're going to insist they technically didn't say 'forever', so what indeed is the problem? There's a letter and a spirit of a contract and everyone who isn't intentionally trying to be petulant understands the difference or is going to be treated in the same way.
- cchance 2y ago99% sure gmail used to say Unlimited, Forever, waaaayyyyyyyy back
- Dylan16807 2y agoThat was unlimited in the sense that you got more storage every day. Since they jumped to 15GB over a decade ago they're still ahead of schedule, because the amount you got per day was not much.
- vonunov 2y agoAnd Oracle Cloud says the kinda beefy VM (4 cores of an ARM thing and 24 GB of RAM) on the free tier is free forever. Sounds reasonable to me. I mean, would Oracle really do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies? Surely they have bigger fish to fry, and a legal department that doesn't let them do stupid things. Besides, they even give you a bunch of free data egress, like it would cost almost $1k/mo on AWS! Man, this Larry Ellison guy sure is starting to seem like someone I could have a beer with.
- drivingmenuts 2y agoThat is a goddamn stupid way to run a business. It's fine for personal agreements, but you need to be absolutely specific when dealing business-to-business, for your protection and theirs. Leaving things unspecified is just asking for loophole formation that leads to unexpected expense.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cal85 2y agoI think you're mixing up two different arguments. One is about whether it's unwise to believe tech companies when they say "unlimited". I would agree it's unwise to believe them, because I have insider knowledge (that this word tends to be a lie in the tech industry). The other argument is about whether companies should be allowed to tell this lie without being penalised. These are completely separate things. Note the word "unlimited" sometimes really does mean unlimited. For example, "unlimited train travel for a month" – there really is no limit to how much you can travel on that ticket. So it's not as if this word is always false by its very nature. It can be true, and it can be false. For some reason, in the tech world, we often encounter people like you defending this particular lie, apparently on the grounds that you personally have learned to see it as a lie so everyone else should just learn this too. It's a contemptible position. And you have the gall to call people "petulant" and "childish" for asking not to be lied to.