In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free?
This conversation cannot be had unless you will read the article and look at the screenshots.
> to store your data for free?
Where was it said that this was free? Per the article
> So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage
Please RTFA before responding. It really isn't that long. Maybe 1.5 TikTok videos for the attention impaired.
I RTFA before the first comment I made on the subject. As I wrote in a direct reply to you elsewhere on this thread, I was in the same shoes. No need for the silly screenshots - I saw those same emails in my own inbox. But I guess I don’t know anything. since I only had to reduce my usage by 20TB and not 200.
Per the article what? Sure, OP paid google a bunch of money over the years. So did I. The offer was never “Pay us a flat fee for infinite capacity, forever”. Moreover, it was a renewing annual/monthly contract.
You have an exit clause, at the end of the term - so do google. They gave plenty of warning.
I completely feel for the OP’s loss of their data, but they still have the option of adding more seats to their account in order to avoid this loss.
Where was it said that this was free? Where you expect google to keep his hosting his data indefinitely despite him not paying them the cost of this storage. This was OK under the old deal as it was subsidized by the low usage customers, but this policy ended - no more subsidies. He can add 40 seats at ~$20/S/M. That’s pretty expensive - I couldn’t afford it. Hence prepared myself once the writing was on the wall.
This is not mentioned in the article but it is mentioned in other comments, including mine, that he was given plenty of warning (at least a year out) that this plan would end. Then another 60 days after it already ended when his files were kept while he was paying substantially less than the cost of service. Why would anyone assume they keep doing this indefinitely, essentially for free, is beyond me.
You are welcome to go back to your tiktok videos. Personally, I dont even know how the app looks, nor any of its clones, eg reels.
>> In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free?
Expect condescending comments when if you state things that are outrageous. Especially after responding to a comment that actively demonstrated that they did not read the article. If you disagree that this is a reasonable interpretation maybe clarify that. But this is also all you said, so I'm not sure what you expect me to read it as.
I think there is also sufficient reason to believe you did not read the chain of comments either. This is kinda like jumping into the middle of a conversation while having been zoned out. Sufficient evidence because you are revisiting something already discussed. If you would like to argue that his interpretation was unreasonable you should have provided reasoning to it. Don't play the victim here. You gave a low quality, emotional, and exaggeratory comment. No matter how good the argument is in your head, you can't expect a high quality response nor be upset when someone makes a quip remark. (idk why I'm even responding this one tbh)
__There was no ad hominem attack.__ I responded to your claim, and by quoting the article. I have not dismissed your claim based on your character nor even attacked your character. But I'll concede that I made a slight and my comment was condescending (see above for reasons). Additionally, my slights are not subverting the argument nor detracting from it. If you need clarification, an ad hominem attack is "you should ignore anything [insert user] has to say because they are dumb and voted for [insert political enemy]". See how it doesn't respond to what you said, moves the conversation away, and now places a new standard which must be rebutted which is not actually related to the subject matter? That's what makes it a logical fallacy. We have none of those qualities. Yet now here we are, not talking about the article or the contents...
You, on the other hand, did in fact make a logical fallacy. But that's already been addressed and we need not be more explicit nor derail the conversation further.
> This is not mentioned in the article but it is mentioned in other comments
Pro tip: do not assume the person you are replying to has read every comment under a post. You may assume they have read the direct chain of comments leading to the current point, but no more. If you are tired of saying the same thing maybe instead of saying "as I've already commented" maybe link your comment. Or chill, because frankly this isn't an issue of high importance and you don't have to really defend either situation because none of have a real horse in the race so idk why emotion is high. You should also only assume the context of the direct thread. If you want to claim that the author is hiding truth and that there was in fact clearer explicit ample warnings given, do so here, or provide a reference to your other comment. You cannot assume I am going to read through or search all >500 comments or search your username. Because frankly, I'm responding to what you said, not who you are. If your context is everything you said, including other comments unrelated to this direct chain, the contextual issue is with you not me.
tldr: low quality replies don't get high quality responses and I'm not going to search for every comment you made
i.e. that support site is mostly user to user help, which is perhaps an indictment on google in general, but sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says".
I think we're looking at very different things.... there's a screenshot of a literal official email from Google, under the Google Workspace Team. Not sure where you're getting "Google product experts". Did you mean to reply to a different comment?
if you're referring to something else, I missed that reference, so my apologies then.
I do think google gave sufficient time to move off. I also don't think a "workspace" being in read only mode was ever meant to be a permanent position for that google workspace. i.e. it was meant that "we weren't going to suddenly delete you data if you were over quota, but its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk".
though if you can point to the official email from google (I'd have to find the ones they sent me, unsure if I kept or deleted them).
> i.e. it was meant that "...its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk".
In person to person language I think we can rely on inference because there's good feedback mechanisms to resolve (like was done here). But in corporate communication I don't think you have the same luxury. Especially when you're a corporation that has no person to talk to to resolve misunderstandings. Instructions must be explicit and to such a degree that no reasonable person could misinterpret. It's why they hire all those lawyers and that's what a court of law would hold them to. I think given the emails shown that there's reason to believe his data would not be deleted until the explicit 7 day notice.
The account was given 60 days grace on May 11, 2023.
It’s currently December 15, 2023.
Google Enterprise (Unlimited) accounts are subject to the same 750GB/day limits (I have one of these accounts, my account has also gone RO).
As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period.
In 218 days, you can download (assuming 100% efficiency) 163TB.
The user has >200TB stored in their drive.
The math doesn’t check out.
EDIT: > As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period.
Up until that point, the user was still contracted to, and paying for, an unlimited storage solution. Any suggestions that the onus is on the user to be migrating their data out while still paying for a working solution is insane. The onus is on the provider to give the user time to migrate after the terms have changed. Unless we consider Google to be the Sith, in which case, yes, pray they don’t change the terms of the deal any more.
in about 2 months, I was able to get out over 100TB a data (using a 500mbps connection, wasn't downloading 24/7 but close to somewhere in the 25-50% of the time, and that math does check out).
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if hidden in the terms of service or somewhere if it is made clear that the data will be deleted. It doesn't even matter if it is clear to @andrewmutz and @garblegarble that the data will be deleted[0]. What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop. It also matters that when explicit communication (unequivocally interpreted as slated for deletion) that the user was given 7 days, which was not even enough time, especially considering Google's egress rates.
There's a lot of this on HN lately and I'm not sure why. Communication is fuzzy people, I'm not sure why that's surprising. But when there's disagreement don't ask yourself which is right or wrong, but if a reasonable interpretation was made. Because communication is like an autoencoder: there's what's in your head (input), what you say (lossy compressed intermediate latent), and what is received (decompressed information with imputation). There's too many attempts to defend a believed objective reality which just is absurd (ironically making the view less objective).
And, importantly, RTFA
[0] Obviously these two are reading between the lines. It is not a bad interpretation and we often should practice this, especially to be on the safe side, but it's clear that there is inference, so what's wrong with the comments is their strong assertions that the communication was obvious. One may also make the argument that Techdirt isn't telling the full story or timeline, but that's also a different issue and inferential.