4 ms·

> That logic is not what we're measuring against. I'm not sure i follow, how is it not? If you're saying that the word can be used, but you know in Amazon's c

> That logic is not what we're measuring against. I'm not sure i follow, how is it not? If you're saying that the word can be used, but you know in Amazon's case that there is a secret number, then they shouldn't use it.. that seems unfair. There will always be a number to unlimited, hopefully published. It's technically impossible for it to be unlimited. I mean, let me reverse the situation, and ask what amount of data/m or data/lifetime (data == tb, pb, whatever) would fit the word - for you?

Karunamon 12y ago
When I hear "unlimited", I think of "enough data that you will never have to worry about hitting a hard cap". The definition of "enough data" is going to vary person to person. I saw this and my mind went immediately to backups, but that is not a trivial amount of data (terabytes+), and I am not prepared to risk my Amazon account over it. That's the problem, here. By not knowing what the number is, you are unable to make correct decisions, and with the alternative being account termination, that is unacceptable. Amazon has constructed a situation in which it's unclear what exactly they're selling, but since we know in advance that there must be a limit, they are advertising falsely. The moment they kick someone out for this, ToS or not, they will have a legitimate claim of action. And I will guarantee you the actual number is going to be smaller than you think.
- fizzbatter 12y ago
  > That's the problem, here. By not knowing what the number is, you are unable to make correct decisions, and with the alternative being account termination, that is unacceptable. Amazon has constructed a situation in which it's unclear what exactly they're selling, but since we know in advance that there must be a limit, they are advertising falsely. I definitely agree there. Though, i think their ToS could solve this by stating it in the fine print - assuming of course they really wanted to market the "Unlimited" word. I did have a thought though, it was be interesting if a service like this offered "true" unlimited storage. How? Well, you could limit the upload/download rate, and ensure that you are always willing to expand faster than each user can upload. Would make for an interesting PR spin for Unlimited.. but with so many companies touting Unlimited, it clearly wouldn't be worth it. Just an interesting thought.
  - malka 12y ago
    Store everything on PiFS[0]. Ahah just thought that maybe Amazon Glacier is implemented this way, and that's why it takes hours to recover a file. [0] - https://github.com/philipl/pifs https://github.com/philipl/pifs
- x0x0 12y ago
  I worked for a company that offered an unlimited X. A startup used us to host some of their X, and literally uploaded a thousand times more data than any other user. That is why those things end up in contracts. Someone is going to attempt to upload a pb of photos to amazon, and amazon is saying unlimited, but for personal usage (threshold quite possibly judged on a case-by-case basis), but doesn't include free storage of pbs of pictures. At the end of the day, users need to be somewhat reasonable about what they expect from a $60/year service.

Karunamon 12y ago

When I hear "unlimited", I think of "enough data that you will never have to worry about hitting a hard cap". The definition of "enough data" is going to vary person to person. I saw this and my mind went immediately to backups, but that is not a trivial amount of data (terabytes+), and I am not prepared to risk my Amazon account over it. That's the problem, here. By not knowing what the number is, you are unable to make correct decisions, and with the alternative being account termination, that is unacceptable. Amazon has constructed a situation in which it's unclear what exactly they're selling, but since we know in advance that there must be a limit, they are advertising falsely. The moment they kick someone out for this, ToS or not, they will have a legitimate claim of action. And I will guarantee you the actual number is going to be smaller than you think.

fizzbatter 12y ago
> That's the problem, here. By not knowing what the number is, you are unable to make correct decisions, and with the alternative being account termination, that is unacceptable. Amazon has constructed a situation in which it's unclear what exactly they're selling, but since we know in advance that there must be a limit, they are advertising falsely. I definitely agree there. Though, i think their ToS could solve this by stating it in the fine print - assuming of course they really wanted to market the "Unlimited" word. I did have a thought though, it was be interesting if a service like this offered "true" unlimited storage. How? Well, you could limit the upload/download rate, and ensure that you are always willing to expand faster than each user can upload. Would make for an interesting PR spin for Unlimited.. but with so many companies touting Unlimited, it clearly wouldn't be worth it. Just an interesting thought.
- malka 12y ago
  Store everything on PiFS[0]. Ahah just thought that maybe Amazon Glacier is implemented this way, and that's why it takes hours to recover a file. [0] - https://github.com/philipl/pifs https://github.com/philipl/pifs
x0x0 12y ago
I worked for a company that offered an unlimited X. A startup used us to host some of their X, and literally uploaded a thousand times more data than any other user. That is why those things end up in contracts. Someone is going to attempt to upload a pb of photos to amazon, and amazon is saying unlimited, but for personal usage (threshold quite possibly judged on a case-by-case basis), but doesn't include free storage of pbs of pictures. At the end of the day, users need to be somewhat reasonable about what they expect from a $60/year service.