3 ms·

You are forgetting multi-user and multi-device homes. My grandma has 3 Apple devices by herself; that would be 24GB of updates, or ~2.4% of a 1TB cap just for h

You are forgetting multi-user and multi-device homes. My grandma has 3 Apple devices by herself; that would be 24GB of updates, or ~2.4% of a 1TB cap just for her Apple updates. Stick 4 of her in a house and it’s nearly 10% of the cap just for that. A single Steam game can easily be 50GB, so there’s another 5%. It’s also an unreasonable burden for multi-user homes. Does anyone actually want to coordinate who gets to watch Netflix this month and who won’t be playing multiplayer games on Steam because they’re not allowed to download patches? Does that actually seem reasonable?

gruez 2y ago
>You are forgetting multi-user and multi-device homes. My grandma has 3 Apple devices by herself; that would be 24GB of updates, or ~2.4% of a 1TB cap just for her Apple updates. Stick 4 of her in a house and it’s nearly 10% of the cap just for that. 3 computing devices per person in a family of four seems... questionable. Besides a phone and maybe a laptop/tablet, any other device are typically shared, so that extrapolation wouldn't hold. Moreover ios devices is probably the worst case scenario. Pixel device updates are around 3GB, and windows updates are around 1GB. >A single Steam game can easily be 50GB, so there’s another 5%. Great, there still 85% for netflix and tiktok. >It’s also an unreasonable burden for multi-user homes. Does anyone actually want to coordinate who gets to watch Netflix this month and who won’t be playing multiplayer games on Steam because they’re not allowed to download patches? Does that actually seem reasonable? I mean if you blow your share of the quota on 800GB worth of steam games, leaving little for everyone else, that seems entirely on you? Give everyone a budget and get them to stick to it. If they can do it for cellular data I don't see why they can't do it for wifi.
- cableshaft 2y ago
  Well I have a windows laptop, a mac laptop, a desktop, an iPad, a Steam Deck, a Nintendo Switch, a Quest 3, and a smartphone that I use regularly (well the iPad I don't really use much anymore, but I keep it updated). My partner has a macbook, a mac mini, a windows laptop, an iPad, a Nintendo Switch, and a smartphone that she uses regularly. That's 14 computing devices right there. For a family of two, not even four. That's not including additional laptops we need for work. Granted we probably don't represent a typical family. Also most Steam games nowadays are 80GB-150+GB (Baldur's Gate 3 is 148GB, for example). Which makes services like Xbox Game Pass less desirable, since you have to fully download and install all these new AAA games you might want to just try out for a few hours (or only take like 6 hours to get through their single player campaign). I have to limit the downloads of those to 1 or sometimes 2 big games per month usually, and I go out of my way to transfer the games to external hard drives so I don't have to redownload them when I want to go back to them, which is something I never bothered doing before. I also watch a lot of Youtube videos at 360p to save bandwidth for other things, like Netflix.
  - abracadaniel 2y ago
    Not to mention cloud storage and backup that everything uses. Every photo or video you take is also consuming your data.
- everforward 2y ago
  > 3 computing devices per person in a family of four seems... questionable. Really? Phone+desktop and then either a work or school device depending on age. 3 seems fairly standard to me these days, and I’m surprised anyone here would balk at that. That 85% isn’t just for Netflix and TikTok. That’s Spotify (8GB of mobile data on my phone this month, with the local saving on), browsing (4GB of mobile data for me this month), work calls or RDP if a need to WFH arises, security systems, etc. 15% of an entire months data caps on OS updates is an insane situation, 3rd world countries have better connectivity than that. It’s an embarrassment. Steam will also absolutely chew through that. Anyone who games as a hobby is likely getting upwards of 100GB of patches a week just playing a few live service games. > If they can do it for cellular data I don't see why they can't do it for wifi. The whole premise of that being reasonable is that you have a way to avoid it by using WiFi. I don’t even particularly hate the concept of charging by volume. What I hate is charging by rate and by volume, and making the volume charges extortionate. They’re utterly absurd, and exceed the cost of production to a degree that ought to trigger an investigation.

gruez 2y ago

>You are forgetting multi-user and multi-device homes. My grandma has 3 Apple devices by herself; that would be 24GB of updates, or ~2.4% of a 1TB cap just for her Apple updates. Stick 4 of her in a house and it’s nearly 10% of the cap just for that. 3 computing devices per person in a family of four seems... questionable. Besides a phone and maybe a laptop/tablet, any other device are typically shared, so that extrapolation wouldn't hold. Moreover ios devices is probably the worst case scenario. Pixel device updates are around 3GB, and windows updates are around 1GB. >A single Steam game can easily be 50GB, so there’s another 5%. Great, there still 85% for netflix and tiktok. >It’s also an unreasonable burden for multi-user homes. Does anyone actually want to coordinate who gets to watch Netflix this month and who won’t be playing multiplayer games on Steam because they’re not allowed to download patches? Does that actually seem reasonable? I mean if you blow your share of the quota on 800GB worth of steam games, leaving little for everyone else, that seems entirely on you? Give everyone a budget and get them to stick to it. If they can do it for cellular data I don't see why they can't do it for wifi.

cableshaft 2y ago
Well I have a windows laptop, a mac laptop, a desktop, an iPad, a Steam Deck, a Nintendo Switch, a Quest 3, and a smartphone that I use regularly (well the iPad I don't really use much anymore, but I keep it updated). My partner has a macbook, a mac mini, a windows laptop, an iPad, a Nintendo Switch, and a smartphone that she uses regularly. That's 14 computing devices right there. For a family of two, not even four. That's not including additional laptops we need for work. Granted we probably don't represent a typical family. Also most Steam games nowadays are 80GB-150+GB (Baldur's Gate 3 is 148GB, for example). Which makes services like Xbox Game Pass less desirable, since you have to fully download and install all these new AAA games you might want to just try out for a few hours (or only take like 6 hours to get through their single player campaign). I have to limit the downloads of those to 1 or sometimes 2 big games per month usually, and I go out of my way to transfer the games to external hard drives so I don't have to redownload them when I want to go back to them, which is something I never bothered doing before. I also watch a lot of Youtube videos at 360p to save bandwidth for other things, like Netflix.
- abracadaniel 2y ago
  Not to mention cloud storage and backup that everything uses. Every photo or video you take is also consuming your data.
everforward 2y ago
> 3 computing devices per person in a family of four seems... questionable. Really? Phone+desktop and then either a work or school device depending on age. 3 seems fairly standard to me these days, and I’m surprised anyone here would balk at that. That 85% isn’t just for Netflix and TikTok. That’s Spotify (8GB of mobile data on my phone this month, with the local saving on), browsing (4GB of mobile data for me this month), work calls or RDP if a need to WFH arises, security systems, etc. 15% of an entire months data caps on OS updates is an insane situation, 3rd world countries have better connectivity than that. It’s an embarrassment. Steam will also absolutely chew through that. Anyone who games as a hobby is likely getting upwards of 100GB of patches a week just playing a few live service games. > If they can do it for cellular data I don't see why they can't do it for wifi. The whole premise of that being reasonable is that you have a way to avoid it by using WiFi. I don’t even particularly hate the concept of charging by volume. What I hate is charging by rate and by volume, and making the volume charges extortionate. They’re utterly absurd, and exceed the cost of production to a degree that ought to trigger an investigation.