Amazon Web Services Drops Prices Again
-
@Dashrender said:
Again, I agree that they started tossing around the term unlimited to early, but they at least claim to be working to fix it.
Sure, "working on it." As they haven't even rolled out the "limited" upgrade yet, I've lost faith. You guys are all talking about getting unlimited, I can't get enough to just hold some PDFs. OneDrive capacity is a bit of a joke. We've had it for a long time and the real world storage capacity is ridiculously tiny.
-
Until the availability of the product is uniform and the sizes are what they state that they are, Microsoft has made themselves look ridiculous. It's been months since they started touting this. And the product remains useless in testing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's kind of like saying the the speed limit is no longer 55MPH, it's now unlimited*.
*unlimited is 65MPH
Sure, there are a few, really casual drivers that didn't want to go over 65 but did want a little more than 55MPH, but nearly anyone who cared about having the 55MPH speed limit wants more than 65MPH. It's not like raising it to 200 and saying "Okay, yes, there are a handful of cars on the market that under ideal conditions might actually go over 200, we understand that it is theoretically possible to break the limit if you put in some real effort and try really hard to do so." No, it's everyday users going over the limit without having any idea that they are doing something "dramatic."
^ They may as well say that you get a free working T.A.R.D.I.S. and a packet of TimTams at sign up
-
@nadnerB said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's kind of like saying the the speed limit is no longer 55MPH, it's now unlimited*.
*unlimited is 65MPH
Sure, there are a few, really casual drivers that didn't want to go over 65 but did want a little more than 55MPH, but nearly anyone who cared about having the 55MPH speed limit wants more than 65MPH. It's not like raising it to 200 and saying "Okay, yes, there are a handful of cars on the market that under ideal conditions might actually go over 200, we understand that it is theoretically possible to break the limit if you put in some real effort and try really hard to do so." No, it's everyday users going over the limit without having any idea that they are doing something "dramatic."
^ They may as well say that you get a free working T.A.R.D.I.S. and a packet of TimTams at sign up
Exactly. You know, because "most" people won't attempt to time travel.
-
I just tried Amazon Cloud Drive. No Sync Software makes it a non-starter for me.
-
@Aaron-Studer said:
I just tried Amazon Cloud Drive. No Sync Software makes it a non-starter for me.
It's cloud storage, not cloud sync. You want sync because you have so little. You are really just looking for a backup of what you have. I'm actually looking for storage.
-
Been using this for a week now and so far, it is pretty good. I am liking the service. Meeting my needs and allowing me to get a lot of the data that I have been stuck storing here and there for years into a central place and protected. Very happy.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's not like raising it to 200 and saying "Okay, yes, there are a handful of cars on the market that under ideal conditions might actually go over 200, we understand that it is theoretically possible to break the limit if you put in some real effort and try really hard to do so."
Erm, I suspect it probably is like that. I don't have any data to back me up (but then again, I'm pretty confident you don't either), but I reckon 99% of people have less than 20k files they want to store online.
I don't think semi-serious music collectors or semi-serious photographers would look at OneDrive anyway. It's for file general storage. For serious music collectors I would use Amazon Cloud and for serious photographers I would use Flickr or any of the other, well known, specialist photography sites.
I agree that the term "unlimited" is often abused though. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but we had a big problem over here with ISPs offering "unlimited" internet usage that was actually capped. I think the term was "Unlimited - subject to fair usage policy" where fair usage was an arbitrary figure set by the ISP.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Erm, I suspect it probably is like that. I don't have any data to back me up (but then again, I'm pretty confident you don't either), but I reckon 99% of people have less than 20k files they want to store online.
I agree. But the issue isn't about if "most people have 20K+ files" nor if they have 10GB+ files (there are two limits, so it covers a lot more ground than just one or the other.) Anyone with 1TB - 4TB of data is likely to hit one of the two limits and anyone above 4TB always hits one or both limits.
But regardless of that, the question is "do people who are now happy about the service because it is unlimited who were not interested before likely to have 20K+ files, files larger than 10GB or both? That's the real factor. The increase from "limited" to "unlimited" was a pretty small increase. But the jump in description was enormous.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I agree that the term "unlimited" is often abused though. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but we had a big problem over here with ISPs offering "unlimited" internet usage that was actually capped. I think the term was "Unlimited - subject to fair usage policy" where fair usage was an arbitrary figure set by the ISP.
Is that not protected by the Trades Description Act?
