[nextlevelwizard]

You know the saying: "you are not wrong, you are just an asshole".

I don't think OP is arguing that it's against ToS or anything like that. He is arguing that if people just upload stuff in these "unlimited" services all willy nilly soon they won't be unlimited anymore. The price will be the same, but they will drop the capacity to something reasonable. Which in turn might hurt some legitimate users.

I'm all for people backing up anything they feel like is necessary, but they just need to know that if they are going to be uploading Tera or even Peta bytes of data to "unlimited" service without paying much for it they are living on borrowed time.

[TeMPOraL]

Except they're not an asshole.

Companies should be responsible for what they put in their marketing. If someone calling the bluff on the "unlimited" plan makes them "downsize" the plan to actual ~10TB + $x per Y additional TB, then so be it. It probably doesn't change the reality in any way, and at least the company is no longer lying about its service.

[nextlevelwizard]

Expect it still might be way lower than 10TB. The unlimited thing, while it might technically be a lie, work on the premise that most users won't have even 1TB of data on the service which lets some outliers have 10s of Terabytes with no problem.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and again you are not wrong, false advertising is bad, but again if you are intentionally uploading stuff just to upload stuff be prepared to lose most of it when the limits come crashing down. Like the guy who had/has over Petabyte of video on Amazon if Amazon decides "OK unlimited was an bad idea, let's give everyone 10TB" where is he going to put the rest of this 1014TB of stuff? If the answer is "just let it get erased" then congratulations you are the reason why we can't have nice things.

[syshum]

The problem is they dont downsize to a "reasonable" 10TB, they over correct in the opposite directly like Amazon did, and people that used the service as intended get fucked.

[dawnerd]

People were using amazon cloud drive to host their entire plex library and were hammering the service every time plex did a library update.

[jackvalentine]

I think there is real damage though, if you let someone advertise 'unlimited' but not deliver.

If my alternative service had a much more reasonable offering with a high limit, that 95% of both companies users data would fit in I'm going to get screwed because I refuse to lie and call it unlimited.

[tripzilch]

> You know the saying: "you are not wrong, you are just an asshole".

That's more applicable when the other party is not being wrong by calling a service "unlimited", when it is not.

(and, arguably, assholes when they inevitably take it down with because "oops we didn't mean, like, unlimited unlimited")

[smichel17]

I think there's a hole in this reasoning. Because, it seems to me that "legitimate users" is being used to mean "people who are not uploading huge amounts of data" (usually phrased as 'abusing the service'). But then, by definition, imposing a reasonably large cap hurts no legitimate users.

[ghaff]

In the terabytes for personal backup these days is pretty reasonable. I think my backup to Backblaze is about 3TB. A lot of that is photos; I have relatively little video.

I agree with your general point though. One thing that helps is that there's a certain throttle because of network bandwidth even if that isn't capped or deliberately throttled.

[pweissbrod]

am i wrong?

no youre not wrong.

am i wrong?

youre not wrong walter. youre just an asshole!

all right then.