• HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren’t going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.

      Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn’t that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.

      • UsernameLost@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh no, a small number of my users are actually using my service the way I advertised it. Better change it

  • Yote.zip@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Unlimited” is always a marketing gimmick, and they’ll always contact you like “hey I noticed you’re actually trying to use the thing you paid for you need to stop or we’ll terminate you”. Along the same lines: “Lifetime license” means 5 years, and “All-You-Can-Eat Pancakes means Four Pancakes.

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I tried the all you can eat pasta at Olive garden once.

      The first bowl happened.

      The second bowl was in like one of those little soup cups.

      They refused to come anywhere near our table after that except to slam the check down.

      Fuck everything about Olive garden

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Weird way to justify their price increase. Offering unlimited storage to business users, and finding out businesses are finding ways to leverage that for profit… shouldn’t have been labeled as abuse… Rising to market incentives might be a better approach.

  • AuroraBorealis@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is probably a result of that dumb crypto currency that uses proof of storage and people were just using Dropbox for it

    • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      But I wonder: doesn’t it need to be accessible to be read locally? If I mine like 1 petabytes of stuff, then I can upload somewhere else and forget about it?

      Otherwise they could mine on a disk, then wipe, start again.

      IMHO they found a scapegoat, everyone (me included) loves to blame crypto bros for anything bad, but I don’t see how here can happen

      • thews@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Emulate a block device and reference it to the cloud api, unless im missing something.

        • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes but it should be needed to read it constantly, otherwise it would download petabytes of stuff

          And that mined file would be accessed slowly