Remember, the cloud is just somebody else's computer.
This is what happens when you store 250 TB video on somebody else's computer and expect it to be free forever.
This is what happens when you store 250 TB video on somebody else's computer and expect it to be free forever.
> Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time” for an “unlimited” cloud storage account. This was a plan that was offered to Google “Enterprise” Workspace customers for a while.
"free forever." indeed
Where does it say he expected it to be free? In the article, there's a tweet that says "So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage"
To me, the bigger problem is that companies are allowed to offer "unlimited" anything in their marketing copy.
This is actually a good use case for something like AWS Deep Glacier or Azure Archive Storage: data that needs to be saved and accessed infrequently if at all. It'd be around $250/mo, but as a business expense for a professional journalist that seems reasonable. Amazon or Microsoft could of course turf those services in the future, but considering the number of large companies that use them for long-term archiving I would expect that there would be a lot of notice before taking that step.
Well, unless the definition of unlimited is actually unlimited as in "no limits", you shouldn't be allowed to use the word in any marketing material.
If a company can go around saying "Unlimited means there's a limit", then that's just nuts.
Burke said he paid Google “a lot of money for a long time” for an “unlimited” cloud storage account. This was a plan that was offered to Google “Enterprise” Workspace customers for a while.
So he wasn't expecting it to be free forever at all.