• cogman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    151
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    but I’m not exactly sure what he was expecting. Storing files is an ongoing expense

    He was expecting a company that promised unlimited data to not reneg on their advertised product. Or to simply delete data they promised to store because it’s inconvenient for them.

    Yeah, it costs money to store things, something Google’s sales, marketing, and legal teams should have thought about before offering an “unlimited” product.

    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 years ago

      Reminds me of the guy who paid a million dollars for unlimited American Airlines flights for life. He racked up millions of miles and dollars in flights so they eventually found a way to cancel his service.

      • zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Because he let someone else use it to see a dying family member iirc, which was a breach of contract

        • Aleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Here’s an article. It’s because he booked under a false name a few times. He had unlimited flights for himself and a companion, it’s beyond me why he didn’t do everything in his power to not give American Airlines a reason to void his ticket.

          Update: here’s a really in-depth article written by his daughter that explains everything. Some of it was at American’s suggestion!

          I went down a rabbit hole. Welcome to my warren.

    • Doug7070@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is the crux of it. Should people expect actual unlimited data? Maybe not, if you’re tech savvy and understand matters on the backend, but also I’m fairly sure there’s a dramatically greater burden on Google for using the word “unlimited”. If they didn’t want to get stuck with paying the tab for the small number of extreme power users who actually use that unlimited data, then they shouldn’t have sold it as such in the first place. Either Google actually clearly discloses the limits of their product (no, not in the impossible to find fine print), or they accept that storing huge bulk data for a few accounts is the price they pay for having to actually deliver the product they advertised.