7 ms·

"...if we determine that your use [...] substantially exceeds or differs from normal use by other users..." Why even bother putting "Unlimited" if they are jus

by skizm 12y ago

"...if we determine that your use [...] substantially exceeds or differs from normal use by other users..." Why even bother putting "Unlimited" if they are just going to kick off the power users?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- Vexs 12y ago
  I think it's a reasonable thing to say on their part, it allows them to deal with weird cases, or errors that upload thousands of copies of the same file or something. It's just coverall-contracting.
  - izacus 12y ago
    And, don't forget, allows them to ban users who actually take them up on "Unlimited" clause and then cost them more as they pay.
- vidarh 12y ago
  Suspicion of what? Suspicion of actually taking them on their word when they advertise it as "unlimited"?
  - gfodor 12y ago
    warez edit: why downvotes? OP asked what person would be suspicious of, the answer (right or wrong) is piracy.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      My question was rhetorical. The problem is that their advertising is false - it is not unlimited when they put all kinds of restrictions on it. When their restrictions are unspecified it just makes matters worse, because it means I as a user has no recourse if they decide to shut down my account.
- itcmcgrath 12y ago
  Drive has plans up to 30TB, so it would be disappointing if 10-20TB counted as unusual w.r.t 'unlimited' plan.
  - minimaxir 12y ago
    30TB on Drive is not even close to $5/mo, though, and is clearly for unusual cases. https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en
    - itcmcgrath 12y ago
      Agreed, but the point still stands. 'Unlimited' does not change definition based on price point. Especially if competitors offer paid-for limits above your 'unlimited', wouldn't that literally be false advertising? (Note: I'm not saying Amazon is, just addressing the above interpretation of 'Power user'
    - kamilafsar 12y ago
      Can anyone explain the logic behind Google Drive's pricing? Google Drive with 30 TB storage is priced at $300 per month. But then you have Google Drive for Work with unlimited storage and is priced at $10 per user per month. Meaning that you can get 30 users with unlimited storage for the same price. Why in hell would anyone pay that?
      - Spooky23 12y ago
        It's $0.01/GB, the same price as their nearline cloud storage option. On the work side, they are pooling the capacity at the business level. In an enterprise environment that I'm familiar with that has 100k users on a shared file store solution... Something like 10% of users use less that 1GB, the 99th percentile user uses 1TB, the 90th percentile users is something like 30GB.
- kyriakos 12y ago
  I'm a photography enthusiast and have more than 10tb of photos in raw format. Why would they get suspicious?
Bhullnatik 12y ago
Because you have to put a limit somewhere before people start to exploit it.
- deveac 12y ago
  That's reasonable. So is stating the limit instead of saying it doesn't exist. But I get it. Marketing.
- prof_hobart 12y ago
  If you need to put a limit, then don't claim it's unlimited. The problem is with the marketing, not the cap itself.
  - pyre 12y ago
    How do you market a variable cap where the actual value of the cap is a moving target depending on the circumstances?
    - vidarh 12y ago
      That should not be our problem. If they find that difficult to communicate without lying (by calling it "unlimited"), perhaps they should set a non-variable cap.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      Market it based on the rules by which it moves.
    - prof_hobart 12y ago
      That's something they are already presumably doing (it's what "fair usage" equates to), and isn't the problem. The problem is making the marketing claim that this is "unlimited" when it's not. Call it "almost unlimited" or something similar and you're fine.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  In which case it's not unlimited, in which case they're lying. The first person who gets kicked off for this should file a false advertising suit. The marketing doesn't get to give you something which the ToS immediately takes away. Maybe then these idiots (yes, idiots, because it takes an astounding lack of either morals or intelligence) will learn that lying to your customers is not okay.
untog 12y ago
It just allows them the ability to kick off abusers. Someone is going to write a script to endlessly upload nonsense data to Amazon just because they can.
- ipedrazas 12y ago
  Well, that's the whole point of "Unlimited", right? I mean, it's not the same "X GB/TB of Data" than "Unlimited". If you go for "Unlimited" it has to be really unlimited, otherwise you're lying.
  - slg 12y ago
    By that logic, nothing can be unlimited. There are a finite number of computers, hard drives, heck even atoms in the world and therefore no company could offer an unlimited amount of storage.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      That logic is not what we're measuring against. The logic we're measuring against is the existence of a number, which represents some amount of data stored which, when reached, will result in the termination of your account. "Unlimited" service if honestly sold and serviced, would mean that this number does not exist. You could keep throwing data at them and they could keep storing it. What is that number? Is it low? Is it high? Only Amazon knows, but in the meantime, they're pretending that this number does not exist. False. Advertising.
      - slg 12y ago
        What makes you think the number exists and this isn't just a standard "don't be an asshole" clause to protect Amazon from someone who abuses the system?
        addicted44 12y ago
        How does my taking a company's advertising at its word and treating the unlimited service they provide as unlimited make me an asshole? The real problem is these companies want to eat their cake and have it too. They want to be able to advertise as unlimited, but not actually provide unlimited.
minsight 12y ago
Why are there "all you can eat" buffets if you can't really eat all that you might ever want to eat?
- Selfcommit 12y ago
  Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1499/ https://xkcd.com/1499/
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  ...because "all you can eat" is not the same as "all you want to eat" A buffet doesn't have to limit anyone's consumption to keep them at reasonable levels. Just like you can have broadband service with unlimited traffic. But storage is relatively expensive and can have quadratic cost if it's being constantly filled. It's a risky place to do actual "unlimited", and pretend "unlimited" is scummy.
nathan_long 12y ago
Gmail used to show an ever-incrementing storage limit that was huge at the time, coupled with a message (when you were logged in) saying something like "you're using 5% of your limit". If Amazon did something like that, they could call it "Practically Unlimited", go on about "you could store 10 thousand hours of high def video" or whatever so that normal users get the idea that it's plenty, and still give the actual limits to those who care. Maybe the catch is that they want a limit that's high enough that practically nobody will hit it, but low enough that it isn't a net loss if someone does fill it up, otherwise their enemies could get a bunch of dummy accounts and fill them up. So they'd rather just maintain the right to preferential treatment.

by skizm 12y ago

"...if we determine that your use [...] substantially exceeds or differs from normal use by other users..." Why even bother putting "Unlimited" if they are just going to kick off the power users?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Vexs 12y ago
I think it's a reasonable thing to say on their part, it allows them to deal with weird cases, or errors that upload thousands of copies of the same file or something. It's just coverall-contracting.
- izacus 12y ago
  And, don't forget, allows them to ban users who actually take them up on "Unlimited" clause and then cost them more as they pay.
vidarh 12y ago
Suspicion of what? Suspicion of actually taking them on their word when they advertise it as "unlimited"?
- gfodor 12y ago
  warez edit: why downvotes? OP asked what person would be suspicious of, the answer (right or wrong) is piracy.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    My question was rhetorical. The problem is that their advertising is false - it is not unlimited when they put all kinds of restrictions on it. When their restrictions are unspecified it just makes matters worse, because it means I as a user has no recourse if they decide to shut down my account.
itcmcgrath 12y ago
Drive has plans up to 30TB, so it would be disappointing if 10-20TB counted as unusual w.r.t 'unlimited' plan.
- minimaxir 12y ago
  30TB on Drive is not even close to $5/mo, though, and is clearly for unusual cases. https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en
  - itcmcgrath 12y ago
    Agreed, but the point still stands. 'Unlimited' does not change definition based on price point. Especially if competitors offer paid-for limits above your 'unlimited', wouldn't that literally be false advertising? (Note: I'm not saying Amazon is, just addressing the above interpretation of 'Power user'
  - kamilafsar 12y ago
    Can anyone explain the logic behind Google Drive's pricing? Google Drive with 30 TB storage is priced at $300 per month. But then you have Google Drive for Work with unlimited storage and is priced at $10 per user per month. Meaning that you can get 30 users with unlimited storage for the same price. Why in hell would anyone pay that?
    - Spooky23 12y ago
      It's $0.01/GB, the same price as their nearline cloud storage option. On the work side, they are pooling the capacity at the business level. In an enterprise environment that I'm familiar with that has 100k users on a shared file store solution... Something like 10% of users use less that 1GB, the 99th percentile user uses 1TB, the 90th percentile users is something like 30GB.
kyriakos 12y ago
I'm a photography enthusiast and have more than 10tb of photos in raw format. Why would they get suspicious?

Bhullnatik 12y ago

Because you have to put a limit somewhere before people start to exploit it.

deveac 12y ago
That's reasonable. So is stating the limit instead of saying it doesn't exist. But I get it. Marketing.
prof_hobart 12y ago
If you need to put a limit, then don't claim it's unlimited. The problem is with the marketing, not the cap itself.
- pyre 12y ago
  How do you market a variable cap where the actual value of the cap is a moving target depending on the circumstances?
  - vidarh 12y ago
    That should not be our problem. If they find that difficult to communicate without lying (by calling it "unlimited"), perhaps they should set a non-variable cap.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    Market it based on the rules by which it moves.
  - prof_hobart 12y ago
    That's something they are already presumably doing (it's what "fair usage" equates to), and isn't the problem. The problem is making the marketing claim that this is "unlimited" when it's not. Call it "almost unlimited" or something similar and you're fine.
Karunamon 12y ago
In which case it's not unlimited, in which case they're lying. The first person who gets kicked off for this should file a false advertising suit. The marketing doesn't get to give you something which the ToS immediately takes away. Maybe then these idiots (yes, idiots, because it takes an astounding lack of either morals or intelligence) will learn that lying to your customers is not okay.

untog 12y ago

It just allows them the ability to kick off abusers. Someone is going to write a script to endlessly upload nonsense data to Amazon just because they can.

ipedrazas 12y ago
Well, that's the whole point of "Unlimited", right? I mean, it's not the same "X GB/TB of Data" than "Unlimited". If you go for "Unlimited" it has to be really unlimited, otherwise you're lying.
- slg 12y ago
  By that logic, nothing can be unlimited. There are a finite number of computers, hard drives, heck even atoms in the world and therefore no company could offer an unlimited amount of storage.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    That logic is not what we're measuring against. The logic we're measuring against is the existence of a number, which represents some amount of data stored which, when reached, will result in the termination of your account. "Unlimited" service if honestly sold and serviced, would mean that this number does not exist. You could keep throwing data at them and they could keep storing it. What is that number? Is it low? Is it high? Only Amazon knows, but in the meantime, they're pretending that this number does not exist. False. Advertising.
    - slg 12y ago
      What makes you think the number exists and this isn't just a standard "don't be an asshole" clause to protect Amazon from someone who abuses the system?
      - addicted44 12y ago
        How does my taking a company's advertising at its word and treating the unlimited service they provide as unlimited make me an asshole? The real problem is these companies want to eat their cake and have it too. They want to be able to advertise as unlimited, but not actually provide unlimited.

minsight 12y ago

Why are there "all you can eat" buffets if you can't really eat all that you might ever want to eat?

Selfcommit 12y ago
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1499/ https://xkcd.com/1499/
Dylan16807 12y ago
...because "all you can eat" is not the same as "all you want to eat" A buffet doesn't have to limit anyone's consumption to keep them at reasonable levels. Just like you can have broadband service with unlimited traffic. But storage is relatively expensive and can have quadratic cost if it's being constantly filled. It's a risky place to do actual "unlimited", and pretend "unlimited" is scummy.

nathan_long 12y ago

Gmail used to show an ever-incrementing storage limit that was huge at the time, coupled with a message (when you were logged in) saying something like "you're using 5% of your limit". If Amazon did something like that, they could call it "Practically Unlimited", go on about "you could store 10 thousand hours of high def video" or whatever so that normal users get the idea that it's plenty, and still give the actual limits to those who care. Maybe the catch is that they want a limit that's high enough that practically nobody will hit it, but low enough that it isn't a net loss if someone does fill it up, otherwise their enemies could get a bunch of dummy accounts and fill them up. So they'd rather just maintain the right to preferential treatment.