[compsciphd]

"google product experts" aren't generally google employees and aren't speaking for google.

i.e. that support site is mostly user to user help, which is perhaps an indictment on google in general, but sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says".

[godelski]

> sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says".

I think we're looking at very different things.... there's a screenshot of a literal official email from Google, under the Google Workspace Team. Not sure where you're getting "Google product experts". Did you mean to reply to a different comment?

[compsciphd]

aren't we referring to the ancestor comment of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38629510

if you're referring to something else, I missed that reference, so my apologies then.

I do think google gave sufficient time to move off. I also don't think a "workspace" being in read only mode was ever meant to be a permanent position for that google workspace. i.e. it was meant that "we weren't going to suddenly delete you data if you were over quota, but its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk".

though if you can point to the official email from google (I'd have to find the ones they sent me, unsure if I kept or deleted them).

[godelski]

I apologize, I forgot that was in a comment above. Personally I'm not concerned with what the product experts said but rather the official from Google emails I'm talking about are in the screenshot of the article where it doesn't say anything about removing or deleting data. I'm also not concerned if you have to click links for more information or Google to figure out Google's policy. What matters is what's in the direct email.

> i.e. it was meant that "...its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk".

In person to person language I think we can rely on inference because there's good feedback mechanisms to resolve (like was done here). But in corporate communication I don't think you have the same luxury. Especially when you're a corporation that has no person to talk to to resolve misunderstandings. Instructions must be explicit and to such a degree that no reasonable person could misinterpret. It's why they hire all those lawyers and that's what a court of law would hold them to. I think given the emails shown that there's reason to believe his data would not be deleted until the explicit 7 day notice.

[oarsinsync]

> I do think google gave sufficient time to move off.

The account was given 60 days grace on May 11, 2023.

It’s currently December 15, 2023.

Google Enterprise (Unlimited) accounts are subject to the same 750GB/day limits (I have one of these accounts, my account has also gone RO).

As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period.

In 218 days, you can download (assuming 100% efficiency) 163TB.

The user has >200TB stored in their drive.

The math doesn’t check out.

EDIT: > As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period.

Up until that point, the user was still contracted to, and paying for, an unlimited storage solution. Any suggestions that the onus is on the user to be migrating their data out while still paying for a working solution is insane. The onus is on the provider to give the user time to migrate after the terms have changed. Unless we consider Google to be the Sith, in which case, yes, pray they don’t change the terms of the deal any more.

[compsciphd]

you can upload 750GB a day, you can download 10TB a day.

in about 2 months, I was able to get out over 100TB a data (using a 500mbps connection, wasn't downloading 24/7 but close to somewhere in the 25-50% of the time, and that math does check out).