▲ 10 points
back
10 comments
I believe it. It's an old story: a few selfish individuals ruin things for everyone.
Just the other day I took my toddler grandson into the supermarket. I was going to buy one of those little boxes of animal crackers. I remembered how much I enjoyed that little box with the picture of circus animals when I was a kid. It so happened that a Nabisco rep was stocking the shelves. She told me that most stores had stopped selling those little boxes because they are easy to steal.
On the plus side, she said, the big bag they did stock is a much better value. I guess so.
If you think about it, selling "unlimited" anything is really false advertising.
If it has value that people are willing to pay for, the available supply is limited by real world factors. It's only a matter of time until some limits are introduced --- one way or another.
DropBox has simply been forced to admit the obvious.
What are crypto miners doing that requires so much storage?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space this perhaps
It's a bogeyman designed to shift the blame of Dropbox's bait and switch tactic to paying customers. Customers are guilty by association to the unpopular thing of the day, cryptocurrencies.
The official blog post by Dropbox is interesting too. They also describe "individuals pooling storage for personal use cases" as "abusive."
https://blog.dropbox.com/topics/product/updates-to-our-stora...
More reason to drop Dropbox I guess.
I don't care anything about what drop box' internal decision making process. I was specifically asking about why crypto needs storage that users were using drop box in the first place. Your soapbox rant is boring to me and unappreciated
> I was specifically asking about why crypto needs storage
Possibly because no one was using over 35TB for cryptocurrencies?? That's the most likely explanation. If you look carefully at the wording, it doesn't in any way state that cryptocurrencies are using up Dropbox storage.
Would you have even asked if you thought there was nothing suspicious about the claim? Dropbox's motivation is what matters when the claim itself is suspect.
But what's your point anyway? They have to have an unlimited plan? They don't make sense. I'm glad they're getting rid of it
I made myself pretty clear in my first comment.
It’s not okay to:
- bait and switch
- shift blame to others with baseless guilt by association
- create bogeymen to excuse yourself
- suddenly change the rules and call people “abusive”
Dropbox completing the final stage of their anticompetitive plan is nothing to be glad about either.
> They have to have an unlimited plan?
I have never said or even suggested this.
Unlimited never made sense. The 1% will abuse it while the 99% will pay for most of it.