• cogman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    For your car repair example, it would kinda be like someone got that and then started going to every crash up derby they could find.

    No, it’s actually more like you bought the car because you know you’re going to rack up a million miles every year. Out of the norm but not an asshole move.

    If Google didn’t want to lose here, they could have not had that feature.

    200TB is a lot of data and a completely reasonable amount if you are doing a lot of filming. HD film takes up a lot of space, especially if it’s raw.

    This sort of usage is so predictable I can’t imagine Google didn’t consider it when pricing things out. Heck, they advertised the unlimited storage space being useful FOR preserving photos and video.

    Why give a company that spent 26 billion dollars making their search engine the default everywhere because they don’t want to spend the 1 million dollars it’d require to continue supporting a product they advertised. They could have ended new sign ups and just supported existing customers.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t think someone should have to maintain an offer in perpetuity because they offered it once (though this differs from “lifetime” offers).

      Google should be fucked directly for their anticompetitiveness. Unlimited offers should probably be regulated and forced to specify some limit, since nothing is truly unlimited (eg an unlimited internet connection is actually limited to max bandwidth * time in period). Or maybe they should drop the “unlimited” bit in general.