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

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

      • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years 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.

        Absolutely! But I don’t think that’s the point of contention here. The problem is the “abuse” rhetoric, since it’s not just incorrect but disingenuous to basically claim that the users did anything wrong here. They’re imposing limits because they miscalculated how many heavy users they could handle.
        Again, that’s a completely reasonable move, but framing it as anything but a miscalculation on their part is just a dick move.

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I used to work at olive garden, it is true that we were told to give less on subsequent bowls (can’t tell you how much was wasted where people ordered a second or third bowl and took like two bites) but not coming back around after… that wasn’t something we were specifically told to do in my experience, probably just had a lazy server.

        One thing is the unlimited soup and salad was like $6 and some people would only order water, get like 4-5 refills on soup/salad/water and then tip like a dollar. That is one whole table for an hour+ I could have had sat with someone else who wasn’t being stingy as hell.

        On the other hand, tipping culture sucks the company should just pay a living wage instead of the like 2.50 an hour they pay.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    “unlimited storage” was definitely a thing back in the day when the average high end user had a couple of TBs of data, but anyone using that now is just stupid. Full on stupid.

    Average high end users can and do have hundreds of TBs now. Companies are entering into the PB ranges. I feel no sympathy for a company who is just now figuring this out. Yes it’d be nice to have unlimited storage as a user, but as a company there is no sense to the cost anymore, and they should have done this 8 years ago

  • AuroraBorealis@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years 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
      ·
      2 years 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
        ·
        2 years ago

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

        • Moonrise2473@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years 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