847
It is also just one of the worst cloud storage services compared to Dropbox or Seafile
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
847 points (98.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
6112 readers
2285 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
Yes. You're paying for the storage space and access to it...I think "* as a service" is anti-consumer but I really don't understand how anyone could think they're entitled to keep using a service after they stop paying for it.
You are abandoning your files if you don't download them before your subscription ends. Providers aren't stealing it and holding it hostage...
And they don't make it clear that they WILL remove the local files without notification. While making it seem like the files are still local. It's at best deception, but really feels like extortion.
The shortcuts to the unsynced files might get removed when you cancel but local files don't
So if someone is paid to help you load your groceries, and then because you don't tip them, that means they're allowed to take the groceries that they loaded back into the store?
False equivalence. You are not "tipping" cloud providers, you are paying them to perform a service.
Let's try a modified analogy and put you in the scenario...
You digitize cassettes for a living. Someone across the country sends you one and asks you to convert it to an MP3. You received the tape and digitize it ..but they refuse to send the money.
Are you allowed to not send the files? Are you allowed to not send the tape back? The answer to both is yes.
Not a false equivalence at all. People before you created this platform, you paid for said platform (let's say windows. You purchase a prebuilt pc, so the operating system and access to the services are paid for at initial purchase (key point). THEN Microsoft says "Hey this service is involved. Check it out. We'll store what you need. Download and register here... Sweet! It's setup you got your files uploaded... Now pay me and I'm not letting you see or use the files without paying me.
How is that business model justified?
Hey, thanks for the free sample you sent! I'll order a box!
Wait....If I want cookies every month, I have to pay every month?
That isn't even remotely close to the same situation. Most people have never actually paid for OneDrive,they use the free version and then this happens when it expires. And if you do pay, then decide to cancel, that isn't "not tipping" them, it's... not paying for the service anymore.
If you load all of your groceries into someone's car, and tell them you'll pay to have them delivered, and you never do, they certainly can leave with your groceries.
What exactly can cause the free version of OneDrive to “expire”? A subscription for more storage can end when you stop paying, but I don’t know what you’re referring to.
Yeah. Not a good comparison
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?
This is why metaphors don't work. Files are not groceries, arguments that apply to one don't always apply to the other.
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.
Why is that weird? With self-storage companies, if you don't pay the rental fee, they hold your stored items until you do. That's calles a business model, but if someone breaks into my house and steals my items, that's called theft. It's not weird how that works because one involves signing a contract and you have say in the other.
Ok. So let's say you're doing some heavy shopping and you're struggling with it. Items are falling all over the place, you can't keep it all in your hands, and you're scared you're going to lose an item. I walk up to you and say "Hey if you pay this miniscule amount, I'll help you out and hold on to the items for you. I could use my one hand to help you for free, but if you want both hands, then it costs you, but the items are still yours. You have proprietary right to the items, but if you start to pay, and then don't pay this one time, then I'm going to hold on to all the things I have in this one hand. Nothing is going to happen to the stuff. I'm not going to take ownership, I'm not going to resell it because I have looked at what you have and have gotten the exact same purchases. Just going to keep it so it so you can't have it until you pay me.
How much sense does that make as a business model? Especially with companies that are getting plenty of money from other divisions where the service would be sustainable, but they just won't. Just need to get more and more money.
In essence, capitalism already controls what you do with your personal data, we should all be upset about that.
And with your storage argument, they should absolutely give you a window to remove your belongings before they lock it. I know way too many storage places that will lock your unit the day after your payment date was without notification because they can get quick cash if they auction units off, so most storage places don't want the individual to pay as long as the rest do pay. Their favorite thing to do is put payment dates on Thursdays. That way by Friday when the person doesn't pay, they can lock it, and it's inaccessible until Monday. That is some petty shit that businesses pull. The whole "civilized" system is set up to work against people with money problems. I won't go into detail of what I mean anymore than I already have, but all you really did was point out 2 problems to try and find a comparison against one.
The biggest crooks I know of in my experience is cloud-share server owners, tow truck companies, and storage units
That is a very convoluted analogy that implies there is a difference between the files on the drive when there isn't. It might as well be one big file.
You do get a window...the 30 days since your last payment
I think they're all crooks but I don't think blocking access to a service when you stop paying is crooked behavior
In your grocery example, is your argument that the person should just stand around the store, offering to hold people's stuff with no compensation, and no fallback if compensation is withheld? I was expecting the "holding person's" terms to become unreasonable but everything sounds just about right.
This person is the Simone Biles of mental gymnastics.
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.
You'd just burn yourself doing that though.
So long as you still have the data there's a very strong probability the subscriber is going to renew in order to access their data.
Once you delete the data the subscriber is probably going to change to another provider that doesn't delete things.
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?
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
Weird how consent works