845
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
845 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6198 readers
2242 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Here's something that I think about that's weird. With onedrive, if you don't pay the subscription fee, they hold your files hostages until you do. That's called a business model, but when people hold their files hostage it's called ransomware. Weird how that works isn't it?
I mean not providing a service because you stopped paying the cost you agreed to for the service is quite different from forcibly destroying random people's data if they don't give you as much money as you demand
It's not like they remotely connect to your pc and wipe your hard drive if you don't pay up
But they have control to your cloud files and they can and will lock those files from being pulled from the cloud
Isn't it the same with all cloud files?
Sure, but you put them there, without taking backups, and then stopped paying them to keep them
So someone who works at a grocery store is paid to help you load your groceries in the car, but you don't tip them. Does that mean they're allowed to take whatever groceries they already loaded back into the store?
No, because that's not what tips are for? But if you don't pay for the groceries, then yeah, they should be allowed to not give you the groceries, because that's how buying things works
But if you specifically agree to pay someone a certain amount of money to load your groceries in advance, then refuse to pay them, it's totally valid for them to not load your groceries, because you didn't pay for the service you bought
Jesus Christ on a bike
So you're comparing things that have been paid for to things that haven't been paid for?
You have neither paid to load your groceries, nor access to your files.
Are you a sovereign citizen by any chance?
Are you trying to create a narrative because you have no other way to logically argue with me by chance? You see how this works?
If you're asking whether the rules for services you've paid for are different to the rules for services you haven't paid for then yes, absolutely.
If someone is providing a service at no cost, they have no obligation to continue that service, because you have not provided them anything in exchange for anything.
"I want" is not a valid legal argument for having a right to something.
So then when you buy a product, you're not allowed to expect product service? And open cloud shouldn't be allowed to be expect when you purchase a product? What's the issue with cloud sourcing being involved in product purchase? When you buy a new computer, you're also paying for an OS. What's the problem in expecting a full use of their services when you purchase a PC?
The fact that all of those services have costs - so what you're effectively saying is that the companies should pay for these things for you whenever you demand it
If they promised you X service for a certain period of time when they purchased something, then you have a right to that service for that period of time. But if they didn't do that, it just happens that the same company sells that service as a separate product to what you bought, then of course you don't have a right to it.
Let's talk about Microsoft specifically. They have the most notable OS in world, a gaming console, word, doc, and they have stock in Google. You telling me they can't afford free cloud storage?
Okay, I too could afford to pay for your OneDrive subscription, but I'm not going to because - frankly - I don't care about your cloud storage needs.
The fact they're technically capable of providing you something for free has nothing to do with whether they are legally or morally obligated to do so.
You're not the centre of the universe, sorry.
It's not free. They're also completely capable of including it in a package or bundle. I don't understand what's difficult about that way of thinking. You buy a computer which has the operating system so you're paying for the hardware and software. So why not provide cloud storage included in that? Why am I the asshole with that way of thinking?
They don't do that, because as a service, it continues to cost them money to provide it as time goes on.
That's not their business model, and acting like it's equivalent to ransomware for them to not use the business model you're demanding they switch to is absurd.
If you want to keep your cloud services, pay the subscription cost, it's that simple.
This is why metaphors don't work. Files are not groceries, arguments that apply to one don't always apply to the other.
I’ve never seen this be the case.
For the most part, the files still exist in the local filesystem unless one uses the “free up space” function to unload files to the cloud.
Where users have ended a subscription, they have become unable to add content to the cloud storage, which is to be expected. I’ve never been unable to download a file, it effectively goes into read-only mode.
I mean, if I was running a cloud provider I'd delete all your shit the instant you stopped paying me. So them providing the option for you to get your files by renewing your subscription is more than generous. Storage space costs money.
I'd rather have your business model because I at least know my data isn't going to be used for reasons that I didn't agree to. However that's just an opinion I have on cloud function and storage
How to lose customers 101. I've sometimes renewed my VPS late, but I think the "free" storage I got punctually got from my host is well worth the 10 years I've been with them. That kind of policies screams "look at our competitors", because, at this point, why wouldn't one go elsewhere?
Weird how consent works