Microsoft OneDrive changes means downgrades all round

[LSG501]

It's times like these that governments should step in and make the companies responsible for their unlimited claims. Then perhaps these companies will stop misdirecting consumers!

you mean like oftel did when they had to 'look into' the unlimited claims of our broadband and mobile providers.....they looked into it and were like yeah that's fine no problem whatsoever, unlimited doesn't have to mean 'all you can eat'. Obviously the person working at oftel hasn't used a dictionary before coming to the (cough bought cough) conclusion

[Syphadeus]

This doesn't make sense if it's really because of small minority of people who had the temerity to think "unlimited" meant there was no limit on what they could store.

Pretty much this. It's all very well coaxing users with lovely buzzwords like "Unlimited", but the fact that MS are actually scapegoating these disgraceful, clearly sub-human beings for like, you know, taking advantage of something that MS use as a selling point, really just goes to show how far we've come yet how low we've sunk at the same time.

It's like the internet companies that sell unlimited download contracts but have a 'fair use' policy which effectively stipulates that it's not unlimited, but does so using legal mumbo jumbo. What is utterly amazing is that this legal mumbo jumbo means that big companies can do big adverts and make big claims, but effectively not have to live up to any claim they make should anybody interpret advertising LITERALLY. Because clearly we don't live in a literal world, we live in a world of marketing fluff and BS.

You can, however, pay extra to live in a literal world where everything can be taken completely literally with no layers of abstraction to peel through. It's £1000 per month (and is subject to a fair use policy should your literal interpretation of too much stuff negatively impact another literal thinking person). We therefore literally reserve the right to metaphorically request you kiss our butts.

[mtyson]

There's now a Change.org petition asking Microsoft 'Give OneDrive users back their storage options'

[crossy]

It's like the internet companies that sell unlimited download contracts but have a 'fair use' policy which effectively stipulates that it's not unlimited, but does so using legal mumbo jumbo. What is utterly amazing is that this legal mumbo jumbo means that big companies can do big adverts and make big claims, but effectively not have to live up to any claim they make should anybody interpret advertising LITERALLY. Because clearly we don't live in a literal world, we live in a world of marketing fluff and BS.

You can, however, pay extra to live in a literal world where everything can be taken completely literally with no layers of abstraction to peel through. It's £1000 per month (and is subject to a fair use policy should your literal interpretation of too much stuff negatively impact another literal thinking person). We therefore literally reserve the right to metaphorically request you kiss our butts.

I agree with what you're saying ... to a point. Unfortunately for big business the ASA seems to be increasingly taking a stance of "how would the man in the street interpret this?". Also, while I agree that some companies "unlimited" deals are anything but, you've also got to take a fair-minded stance of being similarly disapproving of the selfish s.o.b.'s who go out of their way to be unreasonable. For example, in this case, Microsoft offer "unlimited" storage in OneDrive only to have idiots try and use it to back up their entire household of PC's*

I had a discussion with a Virgin Media CS rep recently on this. Yes, their "unlimited" package has FUP - but that FUP is explicitly designed to prevent their (limited) network bandwidth being all used up by a minority of users. I trust that you'll agree that this is a sensible precaution? On reflection I'd still prefer unlimited+FUP to the alternative of hard limits - mainly because I have no idea how much data I'm actually consuming per month, and I really don't want the hassle of having to "ration" it.

I think Microsoft have handled this extremely badly. If the problem is "pack rats" then the solution I'd propose is a FUP of either a cap on capacity or a limitation on how much data you can upload per month. Of course, some have suggested that this move was planned all along - get folks to migrate from Google Drive, Dropbox et al then hit 'em with limits and charges once they've bitten. I don't subscribe to this theory.

(* I did corporate training on cloud storage systems [Helion if you're interested] a while ago. That training was at great pains to point out that these cloud systems are NOT for archive/backup purposes, but instead for allowing sharing of data between platforms - especially if those platforms belong to more than one person.)

[aidanjt]

Or, they could just change their advertising and not promise a service they'd no intention on delivering.

[peterb]

There's now a Change.org petition asking Microsoft 'Give OneDrive users back their storage options'

And no doubt they will, at appropriate prices...

(* I did corporate training on cloud storage systems [Helion if you're interested] a while ago. That training was at great pains to point out that these cloud systems are NOT for archive/backup purposes, but instead for allowing sharing of data between platforms - especially if those platforms belong to more than one person.)

Indeed (and I've only increased my cloud storage on a temporary basis while I share photos from a recent trip)

But who would store irreplaceable/archive material in a facility over which they have no physical or technical control?

[scaryjim]

... I wouldn't trust <Google> any further than I could throw Jupiter.

I imagine you could get Jupiter a fair distance, tbh:


image yoinked from Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestial-Bu.../dp/B009GB1WCO

he looks pretty aerodynamic

[crossy]

Or, they could just change their advertising and not promise a service they'd no intention on delivering.

Quite true - but then again I didn't know that OneDrive even HAD an "unlimited storage" option. Even a "bear of little brain" like me can see that this is a monumentally stupid idea which is pretty much guaranteed to come back to bite you on the bahookie ... and it has done!
Given that the miscreants who were "abusing" the system were storing video rips etc - might Microsoft not make some money/brownie-points by shopping said customers to the MPAA for copyright infringement?

But who would store irreplaceable/archive material in a facility over which they have no physical or technical control?

Answer: a complete idiot.

Then again, don't systems like Carbonite (cloud backup) effectively do the same?

I'm "comfortable" with the idea of "cloud-ing" photos as a secondary (or actually tertiary) storage, but there's no way on this planet that I'd use it as my only storage of those images - unless they were ones that I wasn't too bothered about losing. For my irreplaceable images/scans I'm currently thinking about an SSD (preferably two - of different brands) stored in a safe deposit box. Although when I checked, the nearest safe deposit box facility is about an hours drive away and will cost me £150/year.

[Syphadeus]

I agree with what you're saying ... to a point. Unfortunately for big business the ASA seems to be increasingly taking a stance of "how would the man in the street interpret this?". Also, while I agree that some companies "unlimited" deals are anything but, you've also got to take a fair-minded stance of being similarly disapproving of the selfish s.o.b.'s who go out of their way to be unreasonable. For example, in this case, Microsoft offer "unlimited" storage in OneDrive only to have idiots try and use it to back up their entire household of PC's*

I had a discussion with a Virgin Media CS rep recently on this. Yes, their "unlimited" package has FUP - but that FUP is explicitly designed to prevent their (limited) network bandwidth being all used up by a minority of users. I trust that you'll agree that this is a sensible precaution? On reflection I'd still prefer unlimited+FUP to the alternative of hard limits - mainly because I have no idea how much data I'm actually consuming per month, and I really don't want the hassle of having to "ration" it.

I think Microsoft have handled this extremely badly. If the problem is "pack rats" then the solution I'd propose is a FUP of either a cap on capacity or a limitation on how much data you can upload per month. Of course, some have suggested that this move was planned all along - get folks to migrate from Google Drive, Dropbox et al then hit 'em with limits and charges once they've bitten. I don't subscribe to this theory.

(* I did corporate training on cloud storage systems [Helion if you're interested] a while ago. That training was at great pains to point out that these cloud systems are NOT for archive/backup purposes, but instead for allowing sharing of data between platforms - especially if those platforms belong to more than one person.)

I appreciate what you're saying. It is the interpretation of the man on the Clapham omnibus. I don't, however, think that that makes it fair or right. Even calling it a fair usage policy is misleading in the context of marketing a USP using explicit terminology.

The biggest problem I see is that the term 'fair use' and what actually constitutes fair use is determined by the company and it is not, in many cases, actually described. So okay, as a customer who isn't completely selfish, I recognise that I could potentially use the service in such a way as to be detrimental to other customers, but the service is telling me it's unlimited and is not telling me what is unreasonable.

I'm very surprised on your sharing the fact that your corporate training went to lengths to explain that cloud services are for sharing and not storing. Again, this isn't the consumer's issue, it's the companies who are selling the services. If it's not for storage don't call it cloud STORAGE. If it's not for back ups don't keep selling the service to the public as a place for them to keep backups of their photos and important documents.

I'm very sorry, but I do not take the side of the big companies in this. If they don't like how people are using their products then they need cease marketing them in ways which encourage people to use them in this manner. It is absolutely unfair and the wider customer base should not be being penalised for what we're being led to believe are the actions of a minority. They need to absorb the cost or come up with something smarter than just cutting the services for everyone.

[mazty]

$2 for 50GB for OneDrive, or $2 for 100GB on GoogleDrive? MS have just killed their small cloud offerings.

[TaintedShirt]

Looks like this was reversed.


http://arstechnica.com/information-t...s-taking-away/

Go here to keep some of the space https://preview.onedrive.com/bonus/