Amazon Web Services Drops Prices Again

Carnival Boy

It's not like raising it to 200 and saying "Okay, yes, there are a handful of cars on the market that under ideal conditions might actually go over 200, we understand that it is theoretically possible to break the limit if you put in some real effort and try really hard to do so."

Erm, I suspect it probably is like that. I don't have any data to back me up (but then again, I'm pretty confident you don't either), but I reckon 99% of people have less than 20k files they want to store online.

I don't think semi-serious music collectors or semi-serious photographers would look at OneDrive anyway. It's for file general storage. For serious music collectors I would use Amazon Cloud and for serious photographers I would use Flickr or any of the other, well known, specialist photography sites.

I agree that the term "unlimited" is often abused though. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but we had a big problem over here with ISPs offering "unlimited" internet usage that was actually capped. I think the term was "Unlimited - subject to fair usage policy" where fair usage was an arbitrary figure set by the ISP.

scottalanmiller

@Carnival-Boy said:

Erm, I suspect it probably is like that. I don't have any data to back me up (but then again, I'm pretty confident you don't either), but I reckon 99% of people have less than 20k files they want to store online.

I agree. But the issue isn't about if "most people have 20K+ files" nor if they have 10GB+ files (there are two limits, so it covers a lot more ground than just one or the other.) Anyone with 1TB - 4TB of data is likely to hit one of the two limits and anyone above 4TB always hits one or both limits.

But regardless of that, the question is "do people who are now happy about the service because it is unlimited who were not interested before likely to have 20K+ files, files larger than 10GB or both? That's the real factor. The increase from "limited" to "unlimited" was a pretty small increase. But the jump in description was enormous.

scottalanmiller

@Carnival-Boy said:

I agree that the term "unlimited" is often abused though. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but we had a big problem over here with ISPs offering "unlimited" internet usage that was actually capped. I think the term was "Unlimited - subject to fair usage policy" where fair usage was an arbitrary figure set by the ISP.

Is that not protected by the Trades Description Act?