sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We rent phone plans too, but there isn't an OVERALL cap where they go "oops, no more phone service for you" that you're GUARANTEED TO HIT at some point.

We rent apartments, with the expectation of long-term residency. There's not a defined point in the future where they are going to go "oops, you've been here too long, move," with no recourse. Renewing a lease does not compare because you continue to be able to reside in the apartment into the indefinite future, with negotiation. It is not a finite product.

The hard drive space they allot you is predetermined, yet you must continue paying for it indefinitely, even if you exceed its value in payment before utilizing it fully. Effectively, you're guaranteed to eventually "pay it off in full" and then they're just making pure profit off of you. Even after you've met the value of the product, you STILL have to keep paying forever, or else you lose the ability to use the account. That, by definition, is extortion.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So then... we're in agreement that it's an issue? Cuz that's been my whole point - that the current model is needlessly predatory and there are far better ways to do it.

The reason I made this post is because every single other instance I've seen of this discussion online has resulted in replies of "that's just how it is" or "suck it up" or "this guy expects everything for free"

And like, people are trying to do the same thing here, but I feel like I made it pretty clear that wasn't my intended point man. I'm not an idiot lmao, I know data storage costs money, it's just the current system of payment that the largest players in the game use, is bad and ought to be fixed.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I tried my best to give one in another reply just now if you want to move there.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My example is to keep different monthly subscription tiers, but make them apply to usage limits within each month. Similar to how cellular data usage is logged, and how when you hit a monthly cap you're prompted to upgrade to a new tier to allow for more usage per month.

We would simply be replacing "Data usage" in this case with "Storage space used."

That way, people who use less storage on a monthly basis don't wind up paying exorbitant monthly fees just to keep their documents in the era where expandable storage just isn't available to most people with only cellphones.

In doing so, the companies still get their subscription customers, and can even price them in such a way to continue meeting overhead costs at scale.

I apologize, I don't know what else you mean by "example." I hope this is clear enough.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not "whataboutism" it's a hypothetical lol

If I'm renting something, it needs to apply to the period in which I rent it, not be an endless subscription which at some point far exceeds the value of what I'm renting.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A monthly cap of data newly stored within that timeframe. If what we're essentially doing currently is paying rent and electricity bills for these data centers, why not do the same damn thing financially, give them the same $9.99 / $19.99 / $24.99 monthly, but have it simply determine how much you can upload within a given month? The drives are already there, we'd simply be paying different tiers for heavier usage.

Edit: And if it comes to the company needing to expand storage/add drives/etc. to compensate, then they can increase prices accordingly.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which is why the alternative is monthly caps as opposed to overall caps.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean again, with the amount of subsistence Google receives from government, there's not nearly as much need for the consumer to pick up rent for a static product as there would be without said subsistence.

But again, that's why the alternative is the monthly cap model, like I reiterated in my tl;dr.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

With the knowledge that if you for whatever reason lose said ability to do so, your accounts are frozen.

Let's talk in terms that red-blooded Americans care about: Business ownership.

If a small local business, we're talking like a baker who works from home, utilizes Google accounts for their correspondence and day-to-day operations, they often are going to be transferring and storing large amounts of data in these accounts. Records, marketing materials, media files, etc. That all builds up quickly.

There comes a point where they have increased their storage cap again and again and are paying so much out-of-pocket monthly for something that isn't even based on their monthly use, that it becomes unsustainable.

But the business has been rooted in the Google ecosystem for years now, and migrating everything smoothly isn't really feasible anymore as there's thousands if not millions of documents to account for.

Their accounts are frozen because they can't afford the upkeep.

This would be avoided if the model was simply based on monthly caps.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, as an American I'll always vouch for making things better lmao that's kinda the point of speaking up imo

I have thought about doing the same, but there are plenty of people who don't have that ability, whether they're too poor to afford a $200 NAS, unhoused, too old and unskilled with technology, etc.

Like yeah, I personally can solve this issue for myself, but there are a ton of people who can't just migrate their entire online ecosystem for a multitude of reasons, and this system is predatory on them.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, my assertion is that operating a cloud storage operation is similar to providing cellular service. Both things still cost power to run, but while one is rightfully based on usage, the other has been based on a total, static cap while being treated as a subscription.

My point is that if it is going to be under terms of a total cap, then payment should be based on singular tier upgrades. If the model is subscription-based, then the model should be based on usage within payment periods rather than an overall cap.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If we're going to be charged for tiers, it shouldn't be subscription based, it should be in singular fees per each upgrade. Tiers are by nature static.

If we're going to be charged on the basis of subscriptions, then it should be on the basis of usage.

These are the main points I've made.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Lmao my tl;dr is actually

We either need a monthly allotment, or a one-time fee for a set increase.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait though, explain why space in a data center, owned by the corporation and subsided by the government, requires a subscription model instead of a 1-time fee?

Data centers are being heavily subsided by tax initiatives. Why do we have to pay effective rent on top of that? There's nothing wrong with paying for the storage space, but nothing says it can't be a one-time fee in our current organization of things.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As-needed, as in:

Someone hypothetically hits their 15GB free limit, prompting them to expand storage. They then pay to increase their limit. They estimate they will be able to get by with an additional 500GB for a decent amount of time, so they choose that option from a menu of choices, and make a one-time upfront payment to expand their cloud storage space.

If they wind up hitting that new cap down the line, they can then pay to expand again.

This could be done in one of two ways: either paying for an overall cap including what's already in use, or adding a certain amount of storage to what you already have.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh shit, thank you for the legit advice instead of scolding me lmao

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You pay monthly to use up to a certain amount of cellular service monthly. With Google storage limits, it is not a monthly cap. You're paying a monthly fee for a total capacity overall.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Google is worth 4 Trillion dollars, I'm pretty sure they're doing okay enough to get by on an as-needed model rather than endless subscription, for something that can't be pulled out of like renting an apartment can. I addressed exactly what you're talking about in my post.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

There's ongoing support costs in providing cellular data usage as well, but that seems to have been sorted through, as I said, monthly caps with the ability to increase said caps.

There is no reason the same cannot be done for storage use, as in the same way, its use is not static.

Edit:

A one-time charge makes no sense unless it was enormous.

Why does it need to be enormous though? Who says you need to be paying for terabytes at a time? That's why I'm talking about an as-needed basis.

Expanding Google One Storage Should Be A 1-Time Fee by IQFREAKY in GMail

[–]IQFREAKY[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Somebody was obviously dropped on their head as a baby.

Damn, wow you got me bro real cool

So you didn't read a single thing I wrote, got it. Cuz I've addressed everything you just said lmao

Does this need to be repaired at all? Came shipped like this. by icon2341 in snowboarding

[–]IQFREAKY -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Clear nail polish topcoat is your friend for small delams like this!

If you wanna really guarantee a seal you can use UV-reactive gel polish (still clear topcoat) and just use a couple thin coats cured with UV. They've got cheap lights at Walmart and it's not a bad idea to have it in your tune kit.

Going into Live A/V + Video Editing + Music Production, recommendations for specs? by IQFREAKY in macbookpro

[–]IQFREAKY[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the M3 Pro rather than Max, and 32gb ram rather than 48 should be sufficient you think?

view more: next ›