If they subscribed for unlimited, you can't blame someone for using it.
Why not? We live in a society. Fair use and tragedy of the commons are not unknown concepts to us.
Unlimited does not mean "there's a limit but we won't tell you what it is until you reach it". Corporations need to stop using it that way.
It's really not hard to avoid false advertising. Just tell people what you're actually prepared to offer. Figure it out before selling it.
To be fair, I would agree it was false advertising if Google was terminating accounts of large users. However, they ended the entire plan / service, with significant notice, so it's less 'false advertising' and more 'we can't afford to do this, because jackasses'.
They put users of the entire plan in read only mode with, as far as I can tell, no deadline in sight. When a deadline was finally enforced, it was within a week, which is not significant notice at all for data deletion.
Being told "your data will be read only" and then, without notice, being given a deadline to extricate your data that is physically impossible for most users is not much different from having your account deleted. Both will inevitably have the same outcome.
I'm not sure if you're aware that the unlimited plan was sunsetted two years ago. Two years notice seems like plenty of time to have set up a new backup system. That said, my main and original point is just that this whole incident is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons.
We'll just roll this into the other conversation.
So what exactly is your justification for blaming someone for using a service as advertised?
According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it
Emphasis on bold. Seems like they shouldn't have advertised it as unlimited and should've provided a finite cap.
The line shouldn't be drawn at "wherever I arbitrarily decide due to tragedy of the commons". If you say it's unlimited, honor it, or at least let folks graciously exit the platform.
I wonder if the terms and conditions had such a limit tucked away.
at least let folks graciously exit the platform.
Are you aware the plan was sunsetted two years ago? How much time do you need to graciously exit?
As for finite, due to the laws of physics there's obviously a limit. If I try backing up the entire Internet it's obviously not gonna happen.
Are you aware the plan was sunsetted two years ago? How much time do you need to graciously exit?
Based on the article, it seems like folks were just told that their data would be put into read only. How much notice was given for data deletion?
As for finite, due to the laws of physics there's obviously a limit. If I try backing up the entire Internet it's obviously not gonna happen.
How's a consumer supposed to know the limit if you advertise unlimited?
Sounds like an explicit cap should've been written into the fine print. Why are you supporting "unlimited, but I will cut you off whenever I feel like it" versus, for example, what cellular plans typically advertise: "unlimited, but you get deprioritized after x gigs"
The former just seems to be not consumer friendly.
How much notice was given for data deletion?
Two years? Users were informed the plan ended 2 years ago. Google grandfathered them in until now. If that's not enough time I don't know what is.
Why are you supporting "unlimited, but I will cut you off whenever I feel like it" versus, for example, what cellular plans typically advertise: "unlimited, but you get deprioritized after x gigs"
Because that's not what Google did. When it turned out unlimited was unviable because of jackasses, they terminated the plan for EVERYBODY and moved to explicit storage limits. In other words, exactly what you're advocating. And they did that two years ago. The journalist affected here was affected because he ignored the limits of the new plan for the last two years.
Google sucks, but in this case what exactly did they do wrong?
Two years? Users were informed the plan ended 2 years ago. Google grandfathered them in until now. If that's not enough time I don't know what is.
Like I said, the article says they were only told it would be put in read only mode.
Can you share a source that shows Google told them "we will delete your data in two years"?
they terminated the plan for EVERYBODY and moved to explicit storage limits. In other words, exactly what you're advocating.
Good point. I would then argue that what we have now is in fact the nicer thing, because we've established it's more consumer friendly.
Google sucks, but in this case what exactly did they do wrong?
Based on the article, the only sunsetting notice given to users was that their accounts will be put into read only mode. They should've provided an explicit timeline, instead giving one weeks notice for data deletion out of the blue.
You'd think they'd learned a lesson about being explicit given the exit from unlimited plans...
Meh. I'm not really trying to defend Google here, I think both sides are shitty in this situation. Again, my initial point was merely that this is a tragedy of the commons issue, and the reason we no longer have (nearly) unlimited plans is because some users decided to knowingly push the limits and abuse it to the extent that the plans had to change.
I would say that it sounds like the reason we no longer have nearly unlimited is that Google advertised it as something it wasn't - unlimited.
If they said "nearly unlimited" and "we'll start throttling your upload speed after x TB, they very much could've kept this going.
My understanding of tragedy of the commons is much more applicable to scenarios that aren't in a single parties control. Things like pollution, global warming, etc.
Things like "you said it was unlimited, but didn't account for folks taking you up on that offer" is just false/misleading advertising, or bad product planning.
I, too, can offer unlimited resources as long as folks don't take me up on the offer. However by doing so I will lose credibility.
If they subscribed for unlimited, you can't blame someone for using it.
Why not? We live in a society. Fair use and tragedy of the commons are not unknown concepts to us.
Unlimited does not mean "there's a limit but we won't tell you what it is until you reach it". Corporations need to stop using it that way.
It's really not hard to avoid false advertising. Just tell people what you're actually prepared to offer. Figure it out before selling it.
To be fair, I would agree it was false advertising if Google was terminating accounts of large users. However, they ended the entire plan / service, with significant notice, so it's less 'false advertising' and more 'we can't afford to do this, because jackasses'.
They put users of the entire plan in read only mode with, as far as I can tell, no deadline in sight. When a deadline was finally enforced, it was within a week, which is not significant notice at all for data deletion.
Being told "your data will be read only" and then, without notice, being given a deadline to extricate your data that is physically impossible for most users is not much different from having your account deleted. Both will inevitably have the same outcome.
I'm not sure if you're aware that the unlimited plan was sunsetted two years ago. Two years notice seems like plenty of time to have set up a new backup system. That said, my main and original point is just that this whole incident is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons.
We'll just roll this into the other conversation.
So what exactly is your justification for blaming someone for using a service as advertised?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Emphasis on bold. Seems like they shouldn't have advertised it as unlimited and should've provided a finite cap.
The line shouldn't be drawn at "wherever I arbitrarily decide due to tragedy of the commons". If you say it's unlimited, honor it, or at least let folks graciously exit the platform.
I wonder if the terms and conditions had such a limit tucked away.
Are you aware the plan was sunsetted two years ago? How much time do you need to graciously exit?
As for finite, due to the laws of physics there's obviously a limit. If I try backing up the entire Internet it's obviously not gonna happen.
Based on the article, it seems like folks were just told that their data would be put into read only. How much notice was given for data deletion?
How's a consumer supposed to know the limit if you advertise unlimited? Sounds like an explicit cap should've been written into the fine print. Why are you supporting "unlimited, but I will cut you off whenever I feel like it" versus, for example, what cellular plans typically advertise: "unlimited, but you get deprioritized after x gigs"
The former just seems to be not consumer friendly.
Two years? Users were informed the plan ended 2 years ago. Google grandfathered them in until now. If that's not enough time I don't know what is.
Because that's not what Google did. When it turned out unlimited was unviable because of jackasses, they terminated the plan for EVERYBODY and moved to explicit storage limits. In other words, exactly what you're advocating. And they did that two years ago. The journalist affected here was affected because he ignored the limits of the new plan for the last two years.
Google sucks, but in this case what exactly did they do wrong?
Like I said, the article says they were only told it would be put in read only mode.
Can you share a source that shows Google told them "we will delete your data in two years"?
Good point. I would then argue that what we have now is in fact the nicer thing, because we've established it's more consumer friendly.
Based on the article, the only sunsetting notice given to users was that their accounts will be put into read only mode. They should've provided an explicit timeline, instead giving one weeks notice for data deletion out of the blue.
You'd think they'd learned a lesson about being explicit given the exit from unlimited plans...
Meh. I'm not really trying to defend Google here, I think both sides are shitty in this situation. Again, my initial point was merely that this is a tragedy of the commons issue, and the reason we no longer have (nearly) unlimited plans is because some users decided to knowingly push the limits and abuse it to the extent that the plans had to change.
I would say that it sounds like the reason we no longer have nearly unlimited is that Google advertised it as something it wasn't - unlimited.
If they said "nearly unlimited" and "we'll start throttling your upload speed after x TB, they very much could've kept this going.
My understanding of tragedy of the commons is much more applicable to scenarios that aren't in a single parties control. Things like pollution, global warming, etc.
Things like "you said it was unlimited, but didn't account for folks taking you up on that offer" is just false/misleading advertising, or bad product planning.
I, too, can offer unlimited resources as long as folks don't take me up on the offer. However by doing so I will lose credibility.