this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
222 points (91.4% liked)

Technology

59235 readers
4431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Too many users abused unlimited Dropbox plans, so they’re getting limits::Some people have taken "as much space as you need" too literally.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 160 points 1 year ago (8 children)

You can’t abuse something that has no limit. Stop calling things unlimited and then blaming users when they are not.

[–] poke@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago

I read somewhere about someone who took a zip file, copied it and zipped it with the copy over and over again until the file size ballooned to petabytes. I would consider that sort of pointless use of storage to be abuse.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 148 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I just don't get it. If it's unlimited - in what universe is using it beyond 15TB considered abuse?

I get the reseller part, I get the stupid chia mining part. But if they can say that was the problem - then get rid of those users, as clearly you have already identified them. Don't shift the blame away from your dumbass marketing team onto your users and play an innocent company.

I can't believe how much support dropbox is getting. People seem to accept, without questioning, every bollocks pr statement these days.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I worked for a company that was offering unlimited storage to its too tier customers.

I brought it up in a meeting when we first started talking about it.

"Okay but you don't mean unlimited. That's bad PR waiting to happen."

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What did they say to your remark?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Roughly

"what do you mean?"

"You cannot offer something that doesn't exist. If Amazon decided to become a client, we'd be in a world of hurt."

"It's fine none of our clients use more than a few hundred gigs"

This was in 2018. They still offer unlimited storage. So I guess, what do I know?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Wow that’s low. If I’m paying for unlimited I expect to at least go over 2TB since I have the space

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

How much? I have about 65TB that could use a cheap backup!

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 year ago

May I ask what the company is? You don't have to disclose it publicly if you don't want, I have matrix setup on my profile here.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Got thrown out of a window

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 94 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How the fuck do you abuse unlimited access? This is just a company blaming an idea that was always going to be unsustainable on their customers and not their own damn lack of forethought.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was a business plan and they found hardly any of the plan subscribers were actually businesses, and I'm guessing reselling your unlimited data was against the ToS.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It was a business plan and they found hardly any of the plan subscribers were actually businesses

And why the fuck would that matter? If they can't handle some random's porn and piracy collection, how the fuck would they handle a legit business? lol

Reselling an account would hurt their bottom line, but still have no effect on providing the storage. Imposing a limit doesn't stop that though, other than perhaps by making the product worthless and therefore unworthy of reselling.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

They didn't mean unlimited use. They meant "sign up, forget about it and pay us forever".

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Corporate bootlickers: OMG they're actually using our unlimited service as if they were unlimited. THIS IS ABUSE!1!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 58 points 1 year ago (6 children)

You can’t abuse unlimited. That’s why it’s called “UNlimited.” I hate this two faced, corporate back sludge that always, and I mean always, puts it on the consumer as if they did something wrong. When in reality, it’s the company that is redlining or needs to boost those unsustainable goal of doubling revenue every quarter, ad infinitum.

The real narrative is Dropbox needs money so they are scrambling to cut every expense. No matter what spin they put on it.

[–] Mane25@feddit.uk 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they were just honest about it and say "this is expensive so we need to put the prices up", I would have a lot more respect for that.

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Times are tough we just can’t do unlimited anymore.” What’s so hard about being honest in business?!?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] echo64@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

everything here is wrong, and blaming the users is wrong. Please try to read past the PR speak. and shame on ars for not doing that.

the unlimited plan is going away to force companies that were using it, to switch to their new unlimited plan which is now called Enterprise and will generate a lot more money for them. The plan still exists, they've changed the requirements so you can only get it if you spend a lot of money.

[–] Mane25@feddit.uk 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember in the 90s, my dial-up provider started offering an "unmetered" plan with no per minute charge (for younger people, believe it or not we were once charged by the minute for connecting to the internet). After a short while we were inundated with emails from the ISP complaining that people were "abusing the service" by going on the internet for "hours at a time". Just reminded me of this and how it's an old excuse.

No, you can't "abuse" an unlimited service by using too much, it's unlimited.

[–] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Can you even imagine how lame someone's life must be to go on the Internet for hours at a time though? Oh wait...

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Users: Use the product as it was designed and advertised.

Corporations:

[–] jetsetdorito@lemm.ee 44 points 1 year ago

Like when Microsoft took away unlimited OneDrive and wrote a passive aggressive blog post about how some dude used it to store like 75TB of movies

[–] silvercove@lemdro.id 40 points 1 year ago

Don't offer unlimited if you can't deliver unlimited. FFS

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 year ago

Then it was never unlimited to begin with, wtf?

Eh... If you offer unlimited you have to live with unlimited.

Fuck these people but thats also on Dropbox.

[–] Abnorc@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

Calling it “abuse” is a weird PR move. If your service is good enough, this is bound to happen with an unlimited storage plan. This is basically a win on their part since they got people to sign up for their service. Why shame your user base?

"Abused"? Is it unlimited or not? I don't see how as much as you need can be taken too literally. It's either true or it isn't.

[–] raptir@lemdro.id 11 points 1 year ago

This reminds me of how Skype always had limits in the fine print of its unlimited calling plan back in the day when we paid for minutes on cellphones.

Or, y'know, how current cellphone data plans are only unlimited up until the point where you've used enough and then become "deprioritized."

Or how backblaze offers unlimited plans on Windows and Mac but not on Linux because Linux users tend to actually know how much storage they're using.

Companies have a number that is the profitable point for whatever unlimited plan they're offering. They just want to be able to advertise "unlimited" since that's what customers want and they hope people don't go over their "profitable usage" metric.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

"Abused" service they were advertised. Now it is misadvertisement.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

~~I always hated the term unlimited when it's not really unlimited. Is it really abuse if you're using it as intended?~~

Edit: I eat my words. People are assholes. I thought this was referring to providers of unlimited storage or bandwidth, only to say "oh, you've using it too much, so we're going to throttle you."

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think you are right the first time.

“Unlimited “ only ever an advertising term, to garner attention. No one ever intends to deliver on it .

[–] johnthedoe@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I remember when google photos offered unlimited when it first came out. Called that off pretty damn quick

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


This was intended to free business users from needing to worry about quotas.

The company said in a blog post yesterday that it was retiring its unlimited storage policy specifically because people were buying Dropbox Advanced accounts "for purposes like crypto and Chia mining, unrelated individuals pooling storage for personal use cases, or even instances of reselling storage."

Dropbox also says that this behavior has been getting worse recently because other services have also been placing caps on their storage plans—at some point within the last year, Google also removed similar "as much as you need" language from its Google Workspace plans.

Rather than attempting to police behavior or play whack-a-mole with the people abusing the service, Dropbox has imposed a 15TB cap on organizations with three or fewer users.

An additional 5TB per user can be added on top of that, with a maximum cap of 1,000TB per organization.

New customers will be affected by this policy change immediately, as you'll see if you check the current pricing for Dropbox Advanced plans.


The original article contains 354 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 51%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My only concern about throttling it as 5TB for small organizations is that I could see that being a problem for freelance video editors. 8K video can take up a lot of space.

[–] kill_dash_nine@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At some point though I feel like if someone would be using Dropbox for 8k videos, they should be wondering if they are using the right solution for their needs. I would say absolutely not.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Temporary storage of, say, a documentary with hundreds of hours of video so it can be transferred from the cameras to the editor who is working remotely seems like exactly the sort of thing Dropbox is for.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

If you have hundreds of hours of 8k footage, no one is going to edit it off of Dropbox.

If you have the storage capacity to hold all that footage elsewhere, you also have the capability to enable uploading directly to that storage.

No one is using public cloud storage for these kinds of use cases, unless they’re extremely foolish.

That being said, offering “unlimited” and then reneging on it is also, IMHO, foolish.

[–] kill_dash_nine@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Maybe I’m applying too much of my own personal use case for how I use tools like Dropbox then. I’m using it for documents I actually want synchronized between devices, with a cloud backup and history. I suppose if you’re looking at it for a cloud storage solution, ignoring the desktop sync aspect then I can see where that makes more sense.

I just have a hard time wrapping my head around using cloud storage for such large files being an optimal solution but then again if storage cost is the biggest objection, unlimited storage sounds like it’s removing said objection and you don’t have much choice if you’re working as a remote team so great point, I hadn’t thought about it like that.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Dolla dolla bill

load more comments
view more: next ›