• WallEx@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well, he did ignore that he wasn’t paying for storage for half a year and did nothing to prevent data loss. Even ignored the grace period. That is at least negligent.

    • kirk782@discuss.tchncs.de
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      He assumed that Google assured him that his current data would be safe. But saying that your account will move into read only mode doesn’t equate to keeping those much TBs of data on server forever.

      Though I have a question. Was this unlimited service that Google offered was a one time payment thing(seems unlikely, since only couple of cloud providers like pCloud do so and that too on a much lesser scale) or a recurring subscription thing? If it was the later, then it is naive to believe that a for profit corporation would keep that much data without raking in money.

      • WallEx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Iirc it was a subscription, but I could be wrong. Having unlimited data with a one time payment doesn’t sound like a Google thing to do. There are running costs.

        • Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Presumably it was GSuite/Google Workspace. While they advertised unlimited storage if you paid for 5 accounts, it wasn’t really enforced so you could pay something like $20/month and get unlimited storage on G-drive. There was a daily cap on how much data can be moved, but that’s fine for hosting incremental backups like many that took advantage.