Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpkonofa | Hacker News Reader

First off, I'm not sure why everyone is using the phrase "what is says on the box". There is no box for this service. Services don't come in boxes and the website doesn't say anything about paying for an app. You're paying for the service and the service continues to work. If you don't like the app and that makes using the service so much of a challenge, use another app with Google Drive or switch to Dropbox. The OP clearly has to use Google Drive because Google is the only service that offers unlimited storage space and they just want to be the squeaky wheel by falsely equating the app with the service that they're actually paying for.

View on HN

You're making an extremely nitpicky and useless distinction. If a service provider offers native clients for a set of supported platforms, for use with their storage service, a natural and reasonable expectation is that they will work.

If a video game publisher sells a game for Mac and Windows, and one of those platforms doesn't work, then the affected customer is entitled either to customer support or a refund. The advertised product (native client on a certain platform) isn't working as advertised.

Of course they should work. You're making a false equivalence, though. A video game is a product that you've paid for. The user in this case is not paying for the app, they're paying for the service. Just because Google offers the app to use with their storage service doesn't mean that their support should refund money to the user when the service itself is functioning exactly as advertised and intended. My contention is 100% with the OP's insistence that they deserve a refund because they're "paying for it". They're not paying for the app and the service is working so why is a refund in order?

The customer made a decision to use a particular storage platform due to the features that are advertised. One of those features is a desktop client.

If the desktop client is failing, then he's not getting what is promised "on the box" (or in the feature set advertised on google.com).

They sell that client pretty hard btw: https://support.google.com/a/answer/2490101?hl=en

To use the full power of Google Drive, you should install Google Drive for Mac/PC, a desktop sync client. This synchronizes any or all your files to Google Drive on the web, making them available anywhere, at any time, on any device. It also provides secure, cloud-based storage for your files.

That's a mis-framing of the situation.

The issue isn't so much as the client is failing - but that it wasn't designed to handle their edge-case - and trying to sync 700,000+ items, or 700GB worth of files to your desktop is definitely at the edges.

Other desktop sync clients (e.g. Box.net or Dropbox) exhibit similar performance characteristics - e.g. Dropbox advertise a limit of around 300,000 files (https://www.dropbox.com/help/space/file-storage-limit). So this isn't something specific to us.

For us, I know there isn't a hard limit per se, but there are memory limitations, due to this being a 32-bit binary. So things like the user's environment, and the length of certain fields could also play a factor.

However, it is something that I know several smart people are chipping away at steadily - in fact, there's a new "Backup and Sync client" we announced a month or so ago, which is launching any day now. It's basically Drive Sync Client 2.0.

seems like if there's a limit to the number of files the client can handle, the client should warn you as you're approaching that limit, and ideally block you from adding too many.

If the client allows you do do something, and you do it, and it causes the client to break, that is 100% a "failure"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com