Microsoft Backs Down, Lets OneDrive Users Keep Their Free 15GB of Storage

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Backs Down, Lets OneDrive Users Keep Their Free 15GB of Storage

Posted by timothy on Friday December 11, 2015 @11:38PM from the taketh-away-and-giveth dept.

New submitter Farfetched619 writes: In November, Microsoft revealed that they would be reducing free OneDrive storage from 15GB to 5GB for all users, current and new. Microsoft mentioned that some subscribers were hosting movies and large files on the service, which has prompted the company to make this drastic change. Now, after community feedback, Microsoft is allowing free OneDrive users to retain their 15GB of free storage space.

80 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Thanks, Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 23:41 · Score: 0

These days they seem to listen to the feedback at least a bit.
1. Re: Thanks, Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'm really softening up toward Microsoft. I also understand the expense involved with maintaining all those hard drives. If they needed to take them down, they could just tell their customer base it'd be done in a month. They're trying to compete with Google there though, and 15GB was set by Google.
Another reason to avoid "cloud" solutions by Hasaf · 2015-12-12 00:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Terms are always subject to change"
1. Re: Another reason to avoid "cloud" solutions by TinyTheBrontosaurus · 2015-12-12 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Pray I don't alter the terms further
2. Re:Another reason to avoid "cloud" solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think this is more a case of "You get what you pay for".
  You pay nothing, you get what you get.
  Other cloud service providers take your money and and make a contractual agreement to what they have to deliver for that.
3. Re:Another reason to avoid "cloud" solutions by antdude · 2015-12-12 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  It is not just the cloud. :(
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
4. Re:Another reason to avoid "cloud" solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  I think this is more a case of "You get what you pay for".
  You pay nothing, you get what you get.
  Kind of like Linux an open source.
5. Re:Another reason to avoid "cloud" solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  Ehhh, I'm a Bitcasa survivor.
  The terms of your contractual agreement can still be altered at any time.
  Let's say everything goes tits up - what are they liable for? Probably a refund.
  Paid or free - everybody here should be smart enough to have everything critical backed up in multiple locations.
Dumb argument by lyovushka · 2015-12-12 00:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

"We gave users storage and they have used it. So we are going to cut it." That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.
1. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 00:19 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  No it isn't. Two reasons:
  1) The whole "tragedy of the Commons" style argument, where people are irresponsible, greed-maximising cunts who only consider their own short term needs, does not pan out in reality, as people aren't so psychopathic. If you allocate people a shared resource, they tend to consider the needs of fellow consumers beyond what the law/contract allows, as humans are social creatures.
  2) Anyway, people tend on average not to need to make maximum possible use of a resource 24/7. Businesses obviously plan accordingly, for otherwise everyone would be paying way more - and rather than charging by average megabyte usage per hour or something ridiculously complex, they provide a maximum reasonable allocation and predict average usage. Sometimes they get the calculation wrong, and have to adjust downward - see also Internet access, all-you-can-eat buffets, etc.
2. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they would have been ok with 15GB of personal files. They mentioned movies and large files, so their beef could be that they weren't able to extract personal information from them and monetize.
3. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  ... So we are going to cut it.
  
  But this would have been the second cut. It started as 25GB, then down to 7GB, then up to 15GB, then down to 5GB, or so they hoped. Which is still rather generous. The problem being, as a service becomes more popular, the more subscribers will consume their full quota. It seems like Microsoft is trying to balance their limited resources but are using a flawed model: They think reducing the pay (quota) by 50% means people use 50% less food (uploads). Needs expand to consume resources and it's difficult to make people frugal again.
4. Re:Dumb argument by rudy_wayne · 2015-12-12 01:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bullshit. If you advertise X, then you should assume, right from the very beginning, that *EVERYONE* is going to use the maximum amount of X, and plan accordingly. Otherwise, it demonstrates that you are dishonest and never intended for people to actually use X -- it was just an advertising gimmick designed to draw people in for something that you never intended to deliver.
5. Re:Dumb argument by Fragnet · 2015-12-12 01:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not bullshit, no. A reasonable assumption is that usage falls on a curve of some kind and that the peak value is probably not everybody using all 15Gb. For example I'm currently using 1.4Gb of mine. Now if the bean counters see that the peak value of the curve has moved substantially, well, that's what terms of service changes are for. It's just a business decision for them. It's free to you (though not to them) so if you don't like it you can jog on I guess.
  
  And yes, it is a "tragedy of the commons" argument.
6. Re:Dumb argument by Daimanta · 2015-12-12 01:56 · Score: 2
  
  Bullshit. If you advertise X, then you should assume, right from the very beginning, that *EVERYONE* is going to use the maximum amount of X, and plan accordingly. Otherwise, it demonstrates that you are dishonest and never intended for people to actually use X -- it was just an advertising gimmick designed to draw people in for something that you never intended to deliver.
  You probably know about internet overselling. In fact, the statistical truth that not everyone is going to use a service to the maximal extent of their capability is used in every area where people need to plan. You don't dedicate a persons internet line to them personally since it is quite unlikely that they use it fully all the time. You don't have as many toilets as employees at a company as not everyone will use it at the same time. If you offer storage, not everyone will use the same amount of space as the needs of people are different.
  Ofcourse, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for heavier usage of your system. But to expect MS or Google to make good on all the potential storage space they offered for the total price of zero is lunacy and doesn't work in the real world.
  
  --
  Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
7. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Your defense of this argument is also idiotic. For a large company to make this offer without a basic economic analysis would be ridiculous, and to be surprised by uses they advertised (storing video, photos, and documents) would also. All you can eat buffets clearly understand that they need to feed people all they can eat, if that turns out to not be a profitable stance they charge FUTURE customers more or offer less, but they don't kick out people who took them up on the offer. Internet carriers always complain about the top 1,5, or 10 percent ruining it for everyone, but they know there will always be a top 1, 5, or 10 percent. They could have offered capped services years ago (even though they have never had a problem making profits with the unlimited plans) but didn't because anti-trust laws prohibited them from colluding on prices and services. Now that they have managed to divide up the country into almost competition free monopoly areas they have again started to consider capped plans because the customers have no where to go. It was common for ISPs to have tiered data, or caps early in the internet days, but competition forced them to match the best offer...Unlimited. MS simply hoped now was the time to monetize the free offer, they found they were wrong and backtracked. They will try again when more people have a compelling reason to stick with them (like tying all of their devices tightly to the MS cloud).
8. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  You mean like your Internet Provider does (sarcasm) Any resource that requires bandwidth is based on a average usage business model or it would cost everyone a lot more to maintain profit margins. If all the subscribers tried pulling their maximum alloted bandwidth, you would see a massive degradation or the provider would have to pay for the extra pipes and maintain a much larger infrastructure this wouldn't allow you to have 19.99 or 29.99 a month internet.
9. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument doesn't make sense.
  If they're losing money when people use between 5GB and 15GB, then why are they willing to have *any* customer in that range? They should put the limit at 5GB otherwise it is an advertising gimmick.
  If they're making money when people use between 5GB and 15GB, and the demand is higher than what they predicted, then they should be jubilant and purchase more HDDs.
10. Re:Dumb argument by Fragnet · 2015-12-12 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because the analysis of whether or not its profitable is multivariate. It's not a simple function of the cost of providing storage.
11. Re:Dumb argument by unixisc · 2015-12-12 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  While that may be a reasonable calculation by the company, their legal obligation remains to deliver what's promised. If they've promised 15GB, they should be capable of delivering that to all their users. Yeah, they can have terms of service exceptions/exclusions that make it less likely that most people will come anywhere near it.
  From what I know, the 15GB only applies to Office 365 users
12. Re:Dumb argument by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-12-12 02:49 · Score: 2
  
  Not bullshit, no. A reasonable assumption is that usage falls on a curve of some kind and that the peak value is probably not everybody using all 15Gb.
  And it makes as many friends as overbooking airplane flights does. All over a thumbs drive worth of storage.
  
  It's just a business decision for them.
  Apparently one that wasn't so popular either. And no tragedy of commons needed in this case.
  The bean counters who may have decided they should cut this storage in half - did they consider the effects of popularity? Did they not consider that some users would use all their space? Where were they during the initial stages of this
  Bean counters are very good at bottom lines - even when those bottom lines are destructive to the goal.
  I have no dog in this fight. I don't use any Microsoft cloud solution in my Windows machines, and only use "find my Mac/iPhone on my OSX machines.
  And this is an example of why. My storage devices, under my control, do not resize themselves, or go away, or change the terms for allowing me to store my data and backups on them.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
13. Re:Dumb argument by ArsenneLupin · 2015-12-12 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  All you can eat buffets clearly understand that they need to feed people all they can eat, if that turns out to not be a profitable stance they charge FUTURE customers more or offer less, but they don't kick out people who took them up on the offer.
  No, but they can tell all customers in the room "sorry, we're out of grilled pork". Customers are still free to stay (... and partake in the other foods, that may still be left). And they still need to pay full price, even those that look like Miss Piggy :-)
14. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  It actually makes complete sense.
  Look at a smaller scale example. Suppose you have 1000 GB of storage space that you're willing to give out to 250 users. You expect that the average usage will be ~1 GB/person, though some will want to use a little bit more, possibly up to 10 GB. If you hit your usage projections, you will have used a total of 250 GB, and still have capacity for more users.
  Now suppose that all 250 users used their 10 GB limit. Uh-oh! You've got to buy new hardware now. Something's gotta give!
  And this is exactly what the parent was trying to explain.
15. Re: Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  THAT'S a "dumb argument"
  By that same token, all banks should be required to keep enough cash on-hand to cover the contingency that everyone tries to take all their money out simultaneously.
16. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  A reasonable assumption is that usage falls on a curve of some kind and that the peak value is probably not everybody using all 15Gb.
  The peak value may be more than 10GB, however (actually, it could even be 14.999GB). Also, the spread may be fairly narrow, or could be asymmetric. If you're more comfortable talking about mean and standard deviation, then the mean could be above 10GB, and the standard deviation could be fairly low.
  Which just shows that (i) Microsoft got the expected shape of the curve badly wrong, and (ii) they grossly underprovisioned the storage, if they were thinking about dropping it to one third of the promised value.
17. Re:Dumb argument by thegarbz · 2015-12-12 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  then you should assume, right from the very beginning, that *EVERYONE* is going to use the maximum amount of X
  That is an instant trip to a failed business and shows a clear lack of understanding of your customers. Assuming everyone will use the max of everything results in highly wasteful over-provisioning which from a cost point of view can be just as damaging as under-provisioning.
18. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  I've clearly reached that level of understanding because I said "if [...] the demand is higher than what they predicted, then they should be jubilant and purchase more HDDs." You didn't add anything to the discussion. Why is buying new hardware a problem if it is profitable?
19. Re:Dumb argument by amiga3D · 2015-12-12 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  I have 12 Terabytes of storage on my desk. The smallest thumb drive I have is 32 GB. 15 GB of storage isn't a blip.
20. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  No, you should assume that it is possible that everyone is going to use it fully, but you should also have an idea of the circumstances that the usage depends on and what you expect the usage to probably be. Your business should not falter if everybody takes everything they can get, but planning for that when it's not likely is usually wasteful, thus inefficient and thus less profitable than an approach guided by more realism.
21. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Businesses should not be allowed to profit on such analyses. It is the same as corporations who skirt laws.
  Am I a delusional idiot for believing this? Perhaps, but our existing paradigm is centuries old and modern technology is making fools of us all. Perhaps we should no longer be allowed to force a synthetic fantasy future onto our customers simply because we have a faster computer than they do.
22. Re:Dumb argument by KingOfBLASH · 2015-12-12 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming it is profitable. I think the point is most services like OneDrive / iCloud / DropBox / Whatever try to get you hooked by offering limited storage so you'll upgrade. Companies lose money on the teasers but make money when people go onto the service.
  It could be they miscalculated and actually people only need 10GB of storage. So instead of roping people in (sorta like a drug dealer) they aren't getting a high enough conversion ratio to the full service.
23. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Then we're in the case "they're losing money when people use between 5GB and 15GB". I think we're on the same side. The "15GB" was an advertising gimmick, which was the original point. As you said it could be that they were satisfying people's needs instead of roping people in. It has nothing to do with a "tragedy of the commons". A better analogy is an ice cream parlor which advertises "taste 15 flavors for free!", and the owner notices that a lot of people taste 10+ flavors and leave on a full stomach instead of tasting 5 flavors and buying their favorite flavor on a cone.
24. Re: Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  What? If a business does not profit by doing business, they go out if business and the service disappears.
25. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  You probably know about internet overselling. In fact, the statistical truth that not everyone is going to use a service to the maximal extent of their capability is used in every area where people need to plan.
  Perhaps the GP realized that it's not the same thing: For internet conenctions, most people *are* using the max speed quite often -- every time they load a large image, etc. But as you say, there's also a lot of dead time. For cloud storage I'm having a hard time imagining someone using 10 GB for a short while and then deleting stuff to use 1 GB. So the customers aren't seeing any benefit from the overselling. The only advantage for MS is to have a bigger number than Google, Dropbox etc., so like the GP saied, it's just a marketing gimmick.
26. Re:Dumb argument by Fragnet · 2015-12-12 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Are you a fool? I don't know. The point is if you don't want it enough to want to pay for it, why should anyone put in any effort to provide it for you?
27. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 17:34 · Score: 0
  
  Ways I paid for it:
  1. Bought Office that came with OneNote.
  2. Installed OneNote, per Microsofts suggestion based at time of installation of software. Installation occurred on an SSD I paid money for.
  3. Imported 12 GB of data, at an estimated cost of 20 hours of productivity.
  Now, if I leave OneNote I pay additional costs.
  1. Have to research (and potentially pay for) replacement software.
  2. Have to spend 12 GB of bandwidth downloading data.
  3. Have to buy another 12 GB of disk space.
  4. Have to spend my time to cover costs of transition.
  This is the issue with Software as a Service. Cloud storage isn't a "service" but rather a commodity. I pay for X amount of space (as detailed above) and I get access to for a period of time. That time should be based on failure rates of the hardware, not arbitrary lunar rotations.
28. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  It is profitable, but not in the limited scope of what did people pay for this specific line item. It ads value to the ecosystem, which increases purchases overall. Sure, I have iCloud and OneDrive billed at $0 a month, but I also have a $300 cell phone I paid $900 for, a $800 tablet that I paid $1400 for, and a total of $7 in accessories I paid over $300 for. I am quite confident they both will stay in the black with me for quite some time.
29. Re: Dumb argument by netsurfer912 · 2015-12-13 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  for one person, no. if you have millions of users however ...
30. Re:Dumb argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Not bullshit, no.
  It's the definition of bullshit.
  
  A reasonable assumption is that usage falls on a curve of some kind and that the peak value is probably not everybody using all 15Gb. For example I'm currently using 1.4Gb of mine.
  Then you fucked up with your estimation. The non-bullshit response to this is to revise your estimations going forward, not to come up with some BS excuse of what people are using the service for.
31. Re: Dumb argument by amiga3D · 2015-12-13 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Everything is relative. For something the size of Microsoft........
32. Re:Dumb argument by Fragnet · 2015-12-14 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  You chose to utilise the facility by filling it to 80% capacity right from the get-go.
honeypot, storage is free by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 00:16 · Score: 1

Storage is for the most part free, especially compared to the meta-data and other marketing analyses that can be done on the data people are storing. Hello NSA treasure-trove.
1. Re:honeypot, storage is free by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Let me fix that for you:
  
  Storage is for the most part free, *IF* the meta-data and other marketing analyses *IS* be done on the data people are storing.
  Google is well known for this sort of thing... Microsoft, less so.
  It's very possible Microsoft simply opted not to monetize this data to the same extent to subsidize the cost of running the service.
more details by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 01:32 · Score: 0

Firstly, this "backing down" only applies to existing users who go through a opting-out-of-getting-your-storage-cut process. Everyone else gets the non-backing-down as before.
Secondly, fifteen gigabytes is the equivalent of three blank DVDs, a ninety-cent value! This is a battle over ninety cents. (or for the more extreme users, a few dollars). Microsoft would rather give away ninety cents per user than abandon the cloud-thing, but would rather harm their reputation than give five buck for free to a small number of users.
captcha: villains
hah!
1. Re:more details by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-12-12 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Secondly, fifteen gigabytes is the equivalent of three blank DVDs, a ninety-cent value! This is a battle over ninety cents.
  Yeah. 15 Gb is so small as to be insignificant, 5 is pointless. Easier to buy a thumb drive and use that for storage. At least the thumb drive won't decide one day to only allow you to store a third of what it was allowing you to store.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
2. Re: more details by unencode200x · 2015-12-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, because a thumb drive automatically syncs to your various PCs, tablets, and phones. And replicates itself to different geographical areas and keeps previous versions and backups. Yep, it's clearly the same as a DVD or a thumb drive.
  
  --
  
  Chance favors the prepared mind.
  Perfect is the enemy of good.
3. Re: more details by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-12-12 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Yea, because a thumb drive automatically syncs to your various PCs, tablets, and phones. And replicates itself to different geographical areas and keeps previous versions and backups. Yep, it's clearly the same as a DVD or a thumb drive.
  First world problem, sir.
  Sarcasm rant follows...
  One time, I damn near died from the stress and exhaustion involved when I had to manually load in something from a thumb drive. Can you believe, it? First I had to put it into the USB slot, which is way too complicated - I even had to look for the USB slot. I cried a little by this point. Then a very confusing screen popped up, asking me what I wanted to do. Holy hell! How would I know? So after what seemed like forever, I chose to open it. I was sweating bullets by this time. Then there were these things on the screen! I had no idea what to do, so I went to my Facebook to find out. Did you know those damn computer geeks have these things they call files? Who knew? I clicked on it. Nothing happened. I clicked again. Still nothing happened. Finally I got really pissed at the utter unfairness, the ridiculous inconvenience, and in frustration clicked twice probably because I was shaking with anger.. Then it opened the file. What the hell? One click should always be enough That was .25 seconds of my life I won't get back. It should be criminal I tell you
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4. Re: more details by unencode200x · 2015-12-12 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Lol :) point was that there are more costs and infrastructure involved than the folks above were pointing out. Also, I heard that MS is having trouble building out/getting data centers up fast enough to keep up with O365 demand. I have no idea how accurate that is and in my old age can't remember who told me. Sounds legit right :) ?
  
  --
  
  Chance favors the prepared mind.
  Perfect is the enemy of good.
5. Re: more details by thewolfkin · 2015-12-12 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  but these aren't new costs. These are costs they had when they started this. They should include those costs and start everyone at 5GB then if everyone is hitting the ceiling they could have raised to 10 and everyone would be talking about how awesome OneDrive is rather than how annoying it is.
  
  --
  Just another second banana
6. Re: more details by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  My camera, phone, and tablet do not have USB ports.
  I need way more than 32/64/128 GB at a time. It starts adding up fast.
  If I share a file from my USB drive, it's gone until I get it back.
  USB drives fail.
  Cloud is the future and you're being a pedantic dinosaur on purpose.
7. Re: more details by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-12-12 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  My camera, phone, and tablet do not have USB ports.
  My camera has a little card I put into my computer, my Phone automatically loads it's pictures via bluetooth
  My USB drive point was that 5 Gbytes or 15 Gbytes is probably the amount of files I have in my trash at any given moment. It means absolutely nothing.It is of absolutely no use to me.
  
  I need way more than 32/64/128 GB at a time. It starts adding up fast.
  No kidding. Would you agree that my point is that that 5 or 15 Gbytes is laughingly useless?
  
  Cloud is the future and you're being a pedantic dinosaur on purpose.
  When they can give me multiple terabytes of storage that I can pay the same price as my drives - total? I'll think about it.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Not really backing down by PwrSwitch · 2015-12-12 01:38 · Score: 2

They're staying the course, they're just giving the option to be grandfathered in. I doubt they'll make an effort to let people know this exists.
1. Re:Not really backing down by sixshot · 2015-12-12 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  People who have been told or heard about the whole mess would have already opted in to retain their 15+15 storage. The uservoice page, which Microsoft is using for their OneDrive feedback, that called for reverting the change garnered over 70k upvotes. MS's response on that page also included a link for people to "opt-in" to retain their 15+15GB cloud storage. Eventually everyone will know about it.
  The article title is a bit misleading, however. Microsoft didn't really back down. They merely gave people a choice if they want to retain that storage they were using/given. Granted, this isn't the best course of action. But at the very least, it gives the OneDrive users, along with any Windows 8/10 users out there, the option of keeping it. I still would have preferred if Microsoft truly backs out of their proposed change. Because once the change takes effect, OneDrive is worse off than Google Drive and Box.com's base offering, yet slightly better than what Dropbox offers initially.
OneDrive quotas by unixisc · 2015-12-12 02:42 · Score: 1

Ain't 15GB the storage that only Office 365 users get? I thought that one has to buy Office 365 to get that much, else, it's 5GB
1. Re: OneDrive quotas by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  O365 subscribers get 1TB under this new setup. We used to get unlimited.
What their competitors offer by unixisc · 2015-12-12 02:52 · Score: 1

I agree. Both iCloud and Dropbox offer 2GB - anything beyond that is paid. From just 2 years of WhatsApp exchanges of photos and short family videos filled those up.
1. Re:What their competitors offer by amiga3D · 2015-12-12 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  2GB is almost nothing. I don't think I've seen a thumb drive smaller than 4GB for sale in a long time and those come in a three pack now for like $5. I wont say it's useless but really I don't see how it's worth paying for. I imagine the personal information they sift for is worth more than the storage to them.
hmm by retchdog · 2015-12-12 04:43 · Score: 0

they cut the 15gb to 5gb for free users at the same time that they rolled back "unlimited" to 1tb for paying users.
now they're "capitulating" on the 5gb diversion, but maintaining the 1tb cap (after a one-year grace period) which is what they actually wanted. my guess is that Microsoft's lobbyists have been working over-time teaching the marketing department some basic Washingtonian tactics.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
1. Re:hmm by retchdog · 2015-12-12 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  someone want to explain how this is flamebait?
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
2. Re:hmm by KGIII · 2015-12-12 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it used to be that if you pointed out a truth about Linux then it was flamebait. Then it extended to Microsoft. Then Uber. PHP was in there somewhere.
  I think flamebait means that you're saying something true so they think that you're saying it for no reason except to flame (varied definitions but call it needlessly going off on someone/something). Mostly, it just means you told the truth.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
3. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, I'll explain.
4. Re:hmm by retchdog · 2015-12-13 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  makes sense to me. thanks.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Keep your storage and give up your privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:38 · Score: 0

Why following that link to keep your 15+15GB of free storage is asking to allow a bunch of private information, contacts and such, to be made accesible, even if they put a link that says that you can "opt out later"? Prffft.
1. Re:Keep your storage and give up your privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Free = Users are the product.
  Paid = Users are also the product.
now if they'd only just back down on... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:26 · Score: 0

windows 10, at least for desktops... shred the bits and announce another 7 years of updates support for windows 7 instead....... and without any of the crap from 10 backported.
Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:50 · Score: 0

Already moved everything off, buh-bye.
Thank yor for being arses by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 08:21 · Score: 0

I have to thank Microsoft for being such arses in the first place. Without that I would not have recently moved to the self-hosted equivalent of Seafile.
Quite impressed with it so far, some of the additional features are a lot more useful than OneDrive and nice to have the storage whatever I want it to be. In my case also a LOT faster uploading (don't know if that is a Microsoft restriction or ISP).
The other non-self-hosted alternative mega.co.nz is brilliant too - 50GB and nicer software than OneDrive too. I still use for relatives (with me providing regular backups in case the US decides it doesn't like competition again and tries to seize that too).
Cheers,
Mark
30 GB by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 10:07 · Score: 0

I haven't done anything but starting up OneDrive once or twice since the middle of the year, and I've already been given 30 GB. I don't even know what to do with 29.9 of those. Oh well, thanks.
i'll keep my google drive by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 10:32 · Score: 0

In the meanwhile Google Drive offers 15 GB for free, so nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Global Mother Fucking Spyware? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 14:56 · Score: 0

15 GB is some issue for a Microsoft story? Who the fuck would use a Microsoft cloud? You can set up a VPN at home if you need access to your shit while out.
http://www.howtogeek.com/221001/how-to-set-up-your-own-home-vpn-server/
1. Re:Global Mother Fucking Spyware? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  15 GB is some issue for a Microsoft story? Who the fuck would use a Microsoft cloud? You can set up a VPN at home if you need access to your shit while out.
  http://www.howtogeek.com/221001/how-to-set-up-your-own-home-vpn-server/
  Or keep even a 16GB SD card on you?
  http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004UG41YQ/ref=twister_B007XTIU9Y
  $8 and fuck Microsoft Spyare for life? Nice. You can encrypt it or not. There are many ways to never use Microsoft Shit.
2. Re:Global Mother Fucking Spyware? by rpstrong · 2015-12-13 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  You can set up a VPN at home if you need access to your shit while out.
  http://www.howtogeek.com/221001/how-to-set-up-your-own-home-vpn-server/
  Dead link.
3. Re:Global Mother Fucking Spyware? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  You can set up a VPN at home if you need access to your shit while out.
  http://www.howtogeek.com/221001/how-to-set-up-your-own-home-vpn-server/
  Dead link.
  It works fine. Also you could have...
  
  https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.howtogeek.com/221001/how-to-set-up-your-own-home-vpn-server
  http://www.howtogeek.com/221001/how-to-set-up-your-own-home-vpn-server
  Saved 2 times between July 22, 2015 and September 5, 2015.
  Learn to Internet.
I doubt this is going to cost them much... by Shirley+Marquez · 2015-12-13 11:30 · Score: 1

The thing that Microsoft really needed to cut back on was the abusive use of unlimited storage by a few users who were backing up multiple terabytes of data. Making this move lets Microsoft look like less of a Grinch, while still cutting back where they really needed to cut.
1. Re:I doubt this is going to cost them much... by david_thornley · 2015-12-14 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the issue was whether people got a free 15G or 5G. Neither of these will backup multiple terabytes.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
2. Re:I doubt this is going to cost them much... by Shirley+Marquez · 2015-12-15 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  My point was that Microsoft gets to look like a good guy by restoring the 15GB for free, mitigating the negative PR from taking away the unlimited storage. The cost impact of that extra 10GB per customer will be modest because a large percentage of the people affected will never use it; meanwhile, they're getting the savings from dealing with the people who were uploading multiple terabytes of data.
Large Files by TheGrimmReaper · 2015-12-15 08:23 · Score: 1

"Microsoft mentioned that some subscribers were hosting movies and large files on the service" You mean they... they... they were using what they were giving? Those greedy bastards!