Microsoft begins warning users it will cut free OneDrive storage to 5GB, matching Apple's iCloud

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,116member
    bkkcanuck said:
    I think it's insulting for Microsoft to go so low. Apple is 5gb yes. But on the other end of the spectrum you have google with 15gb and free video and photo storage. Apple should anounce at MWC this year that they are upping there free tier to compete with Google or passing them. At worst they could do it based off of active iDevices and macs. For every 5gb on your idevice 1gb of storage, every 25gb Mac 1gb of storage.


    (Que: but but Google sales you idiot post)
    Google makes money from your data
    This is one of the biggest disconnects out there regarding "free stuff." It's like "free tv," where people think they aren't paying for what they watch, which is ludicrous. They pay and they just don't realise that they do indeed pay, nor how much they pay.

    Companies advertise for one reason: because it works. They advertise with the message, "buy, Buy, BUY!!!" and people in their sheeple ways rush to the stores and buy, Buy, BUY, and then in their self-declared "wisdom" claim they are getting stuff for free, it's so ridiculous it's laughable how disconnected people are with the way things work.
  • Reply 22 of 48
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,398member
    Double said:
    OneDrive is such a mess, has been since it was Skydrive. Taking storage away is not the answer, we're already living in 2010 with all these limited storage capacities.. meanwhile physical storage is doubling and becoming more and more affordable by the year. I think what MS is trying to say, is that nobody is using their service, and that not even the free 15GB is enough to bring people into their ecosystem.
    Don't know about you, but I'm living in 2016.
  • Reply 23 of 48
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member
    paxman said:
    Apple should go the other way and increase the free storage to 50gb and cancel that 99 cents deal. For Apple its nickel and dining the customers imo. I don't know but I'd imagine the cost would be offset by increased sales. 
    Given Apple's premium products, I have always thought every iPhone and iPad should come with enough free storage to backup the device. The storage wouldn't have to be available for anything else, it could be backup only but still, given the low cost of storage these days, it would seem like the thing to do.

    -kp
    paxman
  • Reply 24 of 48
    bkkcanuck said:
    I think it's insulting for Microsoft to go so low. Apple is 5gb yes. But on the other end of the spectrum you have google with 15gb and free video and photo storage. Apple should anounce at MWC this year that they are upping there free tier to compete with Google or passing them. At worst they could do it based off of active iDevices and macs. For every 5gb on your idevice 1gb of storage, every 25gb Mac 1gb of storage.


    (Que: but but Google sales you idiot post)
    Google makes money from your data, Apple has committed to that your data is your data and it will not use it for other purposes.

    I find it funny that people think companies owe them free stuff.  "Free" stuff is often not so free (you are selling your personal information to advertisers) or it is buried in the cost of something else (like telco's "free" telephone under contract).  The small initial amount is really just a taster, give you a taste hoping that you will opt to buy in (common advertising practice).
    It disturbs me to some degree how often this is clarified. Google on many fronts uses customer data to deliver relavent adds based on the customers interest. Apple does the same thing with many of its services just not as much or as well as Google. Your info stays within Google. It does not go to any outside firm. 

    I personally don't mind. Example I am considering getting a truck and me and a friend have been emailing each other about this. If I start getting adds for manual transmission trucks nearby I am happy and it makes it easier for me to research. I don't think some nerf is reading my email I know the computer hit key words for truck and manual transmission.
  • Reply 25 of 48
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,116member
    bkkcanuck said:
    Google makes money from your data, Apple has committed to that your data is your data and it will not use it for other purposes.

    I find it funny that people think companies owe them free stuff.  "Free" stuff is often not so free (you are selling your personal information to advertisers) or it is buried in the cost of something else (like telco's "free" telephone under contract).  The small initial amount is really just a taster, give you a taste hoping that you will opt to buy in (common advertising practice).
    I personally don't mind. Example I am considering getting a truck and me and a friend have been emailing each other about this. If I start getting adds for manual transmission trucks nearby I am happy and it makes it easier for me to research. I don't think some nerf is reading my email I know the computer hit key words for truck and manual transmission.
    Yeah, because 1) we all know how honest advertisers are, and 2) nothing says comprehensive research like being guided to a specific place of business (so they can sell you *their* wares) by grabbing your attention to the exclusion of the rest of what's out there in the market.

    This attitude also, I'm sorry I'm not meaning to offend, but I see it all the time - it's a form of intellectual apologism. It's always "the other guy who falls prey to their [manipulative] tactics, not me" false belief. Someone has to pay for all those ads, it's just ironic how often it's the *other* guy. And of course that's not a problem because *other people* falling prey to their manipulations is okay, right? ;-)

    Personally, I'm not someone who agrees any reason either justifies a violation of anyone's privacy [by scanning private communications] or provides them a right to attempt to manipulate someone in their purchase decisions in the first place [via advertising]. I'm constantly amazed, though, how many are absolutely fine with it.
    ericthehalfbeemagman1979baconstangRayz2016chia
  • Reply 26 of 48
    redefilerredefiler Posts: 323member
    It disturbs me to some degree how often this is clarified. Google on many fronts uses customer data to deliver relavent adds based on the customers interest. Apple does the same thing with many of its services just not as much or as well as Google. Your info stays within Google. It does not go to any outside firm. 

    I personally don't mind. Example I am considering getting a truck and me and a friend have been emailing each other about this. If I start getting adds for manual transmission trucks nearby I am happy and it makes it easier for me to research. I don't think some nerf is reading my email I know the computer hit key words for truck and manual transmission.
    That's totally creepy.  No, Apple doesn't read your emails and then try to monetize your private conversations.  Also there are clear opt out options for Apple's services, that don't impact the service's end functionality.  Siri doesn't need to read and process my email conversation to set a timer, get directions or add an appointment to my calendar. 

    But hey, you're not the first person to join a creepy cult, and it's your choice, but if the three seconds you save on transmission ads vs a transmission search (which you'd have to do anyways) is that important, there's a series of life decisions you may want to reevaluate.  Regardless you should be relentless mocked for your weird practices, beliefs and any resulting weird haircuts from joining a cult.
    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/3/6/1362575657501/Googles-Sergey-Brin-weari-010.jpg
    https://boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/larry-page110815121836.jpg?w=942
    http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/543957e269beddcd76a59c14-1200-924/eric-schmidt-32.jpg

    For rational people, Google's word is worth less than zero.  For the lazy... well they are lazy, and have decided that any thought or effort aren't worth the trouble.  Diapers might also work for these types too, save the tiny hassle of getting up to go to the bathroom.  I hate junk ads in all forms, and I'm smarter than the average monkey, so finding a transmission is something I can easily do on my own, after I put on my big boy pants.

    And long before anyone is opting into their lousy services, Google should be getting consent and paying each user for using their data, especially when it's combed from website tools that don't pre-announce themselves.  Instead of being a repugnant shadowy presence on the web, take some responsibility and start accounting for any data value they are scrounging without clear, obvious and explicit permission.  

    Its a problem per site as well, any revolting worm that is trading user data for some cheesy, vastly overhyped metric tools, should be announcing this before any shred of data is collected.  If not, they should be paying back for data they are conspiring with a third parties to collect.  If there's a cover charge just to walk into the store, that should be clear before entry.  There is no excuse for a retailer or site owner to be taking pictures of you and selling them to someone else.  You want to monetize our likenesses, browsing habits or otherwise, then you pay the people you are taking it from.  When visiting a store (physical or virtual) people still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Just like when I invite people into my home, I shouldn't be selling data on their habits on the down low, and if I do, they should expect compensation or damages if not consented.

    It's also time someone at least built chaf generation tools into browsers, so that any search you do is simultaneous obscured by several other random phrase searches.  Fight these leeches, by destroying the value of any data they try to collect.  They'd have no idea what anyone is really searching for, and the vast majority of their incredibly shitty advertisers couldn't trust any of the data services they are offering.
    williamlondonmagman1979baconstangRayz2016chiadiplication
  • Reply 27 of 48
    I personally don't mind. Example I am considering getting a truck and me and a friend have been emailing each other about this. If I start getting adds for manual transmission trucks nearby I am happy and it makes it easier for me to research. I don't think some nerf is readinitmy email I know the computer hit key words for truck and manual transmission.
    Yeah, because 1) we all know how honest advertisers are, and 2) nothing says comprehensive research like being guided to a specific place of business (so they can sell you *their* wares) by grabbing your attention to the exclusion of the rest of what's out there in the market.

    This attitude also, I'm sorry I'm not meaning to offend, but I see it all the time - it's a form of intellectual apologism. It's always "the other guy who falls prey to their [manipulative] tactics, not me" false belief. Someone has to pay for all those ads, it's just ironic how often it's the *other* guy. And of course that's not a problem because *other people* falling prey to their manipulations is okay, right? ;-)

    Personally, I'm not someone who agrees any reason either justifies a violation of anyone's privacy [by scanning private communications] or provides them a right to attempt to manipulate someone in their purchase decisions in the first place [via advertising]. I'm constantly amazed, though, how many are absolutely fine with it.
    Your argument is that it is bad that I focus attention on an ad relative to what I am researching. It's a truck. I am going to put some research into it before I drop 55,000+ into it. The more realivent info the better my truck will be. I don't mind going to a specific place of business for the right truck as it stands I am having a hell of a time finding the "right" truck. If some one has the truck I want why deny myself that possibility. As it stands I will need to special order.
  • Reply 28 of 48
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,116member
    Yeah, because 1) we all know how honest advertisers are, and 2) nothing says comprehensive research like being guided to a specific place of business (so they can sell you *their* wares) by grabbing your attention to the exclusion of the rest of what's out there in the market.

    This attitude also, I'm sorry I'm not meaning to offend, but I see it all the time - it's a form of intellectual apologism. It's always "the other guy who falls prey to their [manipulative] tactics, not me" false belief. Someone has to pay for all those ads, it's just ironic how often it's the *other* guy. And of course that's not a problem because *other people* falling prey to their manipulations is okay, right? ;-)

    Personally, I'm not someone who agrees any reason either justifies a violation of anyone's privacy [by scanning private communications] or provides them a right to attempt to manipulate someone in their purchase decisions in the first place [via advertising]. I'm constantly amazed, though, how many are absolutely fine with it.
    Your argument is that it is bad that I focus attention on an ad relative to what I am researching. It's a truck. I am going to put some research into it before I drop 55,000+ into it. The more realivent info the better my truck will be. I don't mind going to a specific place of business for the right truck as it stands I am having a hell of a time finding the "right" truck. If some one has the truck I want why deny myself that possibility. As it stands I will need to special order.
    No, sorry, I wasn't clear. You didn't do bad by focusing attention on the ad, the bad was that *they* created and sent you the ad in the first place. *Your* "bad" is that you think it's okay for them to do that.

    You believe that 1) the ad is full of true information, and/or that 2) it's okay for them to manipulate you by first scanning your personal emails to determine your buying plans and use it against you to get you to believe the lies they spew in their ads so you will buy what they want you to buy (which may or may not be what you want or need - that is not their concern).

    Listen, I'm all for researching your purchases, I wholeheartedly embrace this, I just don't subscribe to their "push" method of product research (meaning they push the "buy, buy, buy" message at you, personalised or not, whether you're ready, in market or not), I prefer the pull method. It's obvious they say things (in ads and in person) that are in *their* best interest for you to believe. I believe that it's better when *I* initiate research (from unbiased sources, which ads most definitely are not) *when* I'm ready and not be subjected to their constant barrage of marketing and sales messages (which are always, "buy now!").

    You may believe you escape their manipulations and are capable of buying *only* what you want/need and *only* when you want/need something. Personally, I don't believe everyone is that capable. Regardless whether it's you or it's only everyone else, I believe our society would be better without it.
    baconstangRayz2016chia
  • Reply 29 of 48
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    ireland said:
    Backups to iCloud should be free and backup any iOS device you own. There would be small few rules for app devs and Mac photographers to stop them abusing the free backups.

    Why you ask? Aren't you being greedy here? No. I think regardless of the costs involved for Apple—and in the grand scheme of things the costs compared to Apple's wealth would be minor—the benefits to such a system would be amazing for Apple device users and for Apple.

    For Apple, the benefits here are because users no longer need to think about backups as a problem and everyone has everything backed up, Apple gets a certain ecosystem lock-in that few other companies can get.

    For users they never have to worry about losing important data ever again.

    Both parties benefit in extraordinary ways.

    And they could have a single paid plan of 5 TB for €14.99 per month for photographers and pros that includes iCloud backup for Macs too.

    It Just Works®

    ^^^ This is a very reasoned suggestion -- I wouldn't be surprised if Apple offered something like this.

  • Reply 30 of 48
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member

    crowley said:
    paxman said:
    Apple should go the other way and increase the free storage to 50gb and cancel that 99 cents deal. For Apple its nickel and dining the customers imo. I don't know but I'd imagine the cost would be offset by increased sales. 
    Increased sales?  How many potential iDevice buyers do you imagine are being put off by the iCloud storage limit?

    I suspect the "must have" feature that Tim teased depends upon iCloud.  It will not necessarily require an increase in iCloud Storage, but users will benefit by providing all [active]  Apple devices iCloud access.

  • Reply 31 of 48
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    I got 30Gb of OneDrive storage with my Nokia.  I haven't received any notification that my allocation is to be altered.
  • Reply 32 of 48
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    apple ][ said:
    I have so many iOS devices that 5 Gb just doesn't cut it, so I just pay 99 cents a month to Apple.
    Me too! :)

  • Reply 33 of 48
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    And next year Apple increases free to 10gb after ms has completely irritated its customers yet again.
  • Reply 34 of 48
    webraiderwebraider Posts: 162member
    For those of you who are bothered by this.. or other similar situations with other companies reducing the amount of free storage, I suggest you get a NAS at your own home and stop using online storage all together.  Then you can be happy again!!!
  • Reply 35 of 48
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 862member
    Yeah, because 1) we all know how honest advertisers are, and 2) nothing says comprehensive research like being guided to a specific place of business (so they can sell you *their* wares) by grabbing your attention to the exclusion of the rest of what's out there in the market.

    This attitude also, I'm sorry I'm not meaning to offend, but I see it all the time - it's a form of intellectual apologism. It's always "the other guy who falls prey to their [manipulative] tactics, not me" false belief. Someone has to pay for all those ads, it's just ironic how often it's the *other* guy. And of course that's not a problem because *other people* falling prey to their manipulations is okay, right? ;-)

    Personally, I'm not someone who agrees any reason either justifies a violation of anyone's privacy [by scanning private communications] or provides them a right to attempt to manipulate someone in their purchase decisions in the first place [via advertising]. I'm constantly amazed, though, how many are absolutely fine with it.
    Your argument is that it is bad that I focus attention on an ad relative to what I am researching. It's a truck. I am going to put some research into it before I drop 55,000+ into it. The more realivent info the better my truck will be. I don't mind going to a specific place of business for the right truck as it stands I am having a hell of a time finding the "right" truck. If some one has the truck I want why deny myself that possibility. As it stands I will need to special order.
    I will have to assume that if you are ok with Google scanning all your private communications as a way of funding your "free" products that you also have to be perfectly fine with giving the Government complete access to all your communications in return for making sure you are "safe" from foreign or domestic threats....

    Knowledge is power.... you have to look no farther than the J. Edgar Hoover who used information that was collected to harass political dissenters and activists as well as political leaders and even presidents.  The information about the individuals in most cases was about legal but embarrassing information that would cause damage to the people (who he tried to control) -- if it were released to the general public.  The profile that Google can build on you is actually quite a bit more detailed than the profile that J. Edgar Hoover would have access to since the volume and detail of the information that Google is able to collect -- far exceeds what the FBI had access to at that time.  

    Not only are you putting your complete faith in Google (a private company) that your information will not be misused, but also many employees that would be able to access or collect the information for their own uses.  Any number of those employees could have been compromised by domestic or foreign governments, mafia, or other private organizations who might not be so benevolent with the power that they are able to accrue from this information.  


    baconstangtallest skilwilliamlondonchia
  • Reply 36 of 48
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,047member
    There’s a lesson to be learned here. When you rely on “free” be prepared to get hosed at any time. And no, Apple should not be offering any free iCloud. Make it reliable, intuitive, and people who need it will gladly pay. Let the freetards twist in the wind. They deserve it.
  • Reply 37 of 48
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    cnocbui said:
    I got 30Gb of OneDrive storage with my Nokia.  I haven't received any notification that my allocation is to be altered.
    according to the FAQ, the notifications only go out to people who are over their quota. 

    https://blog.onedrive.com/onedrive_changes_FAQ/



    edited May 2016
  • Reply 38 of 48
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    lkrupp said:
    There’s a lesson to be learned here. When you rely on “free” be prepared to get hosed at any time. And no, Apple should not be offering any free iCloud. Make it reliable, intuitive, and people who need it will gladly pay. Let the freetards twist in the wind. They deserve it.

    The lesson here is how to run a business, which people who whine about Apple being rich and not giving away free stuff clearly don't understand. 

    Each division of Apple has to be accountable in its own right: there is no robbing Peter to pay Paul. The price Apple's storage has been set to ensure that the services division is profitable in its own right. Tim Cook will not stand up at a board meeting and say, 'Let's just give storage away for free; the phone division will cover it.'  

    In my opinion, Microsoft's destruction in the phone market is more to do with poor management than anything else. They didn't have an incentive to try because they knew Office licenses would hide the losses the other divisions (Xbox… oy!) were making. when you manage a company like this then the other divisions suffer when your cash cow starts to wobble. 

    Microsoft  is now trying to make each division accountable, so goodbye free stuff. 
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 39 of 48
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Rayz2016 said:

    lkrupp said:
    There’s a lesson to be learned here. When you rely on “free” be prepared to get hosed at any time. And no, Apple should not be offering any free iCloud. Make it reliable, intuitive, and people who need it will gladly pay. Let the freetards twist in the wind. They deserve it.

    The lesson here is how to run a business, which people who whine about Apple being rich and not giving away free stuff clearly don't understand. 

    Each division of Apple has to be accountable in its own right: there is no robbing Peter to pay Paul. The price Apple's storage has been set to ensure that the services division is profitable in its own right. Tim Cook will not stand up at a board meeting and say, 'Let's just give storage away for free; the phone division will cover it.'  

    In my opinion, Microsoft's destruction in the phone market is more to do with poor management than anything else. They didn't have an incentive to try because they knew Office licenses would hide the losses the other divisions (Xbox… oy!) were making. when you manage a company like this then the other divisions suffer when your cash cow starts to wobble. 

    Microsoft  is now trying to make each division accountable, so goodbye free stuff. 
    It's not 'free'.  It amounts to offering enticements to purchase and then withdrawing them after the purchase.
  • Reply 40 of 48
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    cnocbui said:
    Rayz2016 said:


    The lesson here is how to run a business, which people who whine about Apple being rich and not giving away free stuff clearly don't understand. 

    Each division of Apple has to be accountable in its own right: there is no robbing Peter to pay Paul. The price Apple's storage has been set to ensure that the services division is profitable in its own right. Tim Cook will not stand up at a board meeting and say, 'Let's just give storage away for free; the phone division will cover it.'  

    In my opinion, Microsoft's destruction in the phone market is more to do with poor management than anything else. They didn't have an incentive to try because they knew Office licenses would hide the losses the other divisions (Xbox… oy!) were making. when you manage a company like this then the other divisions suffer when your cash cow starts to wobble. 

    Microsoft  is now trying to make each division accountable, so goodbye free stuff. 
    It's not 'free'.  It amounts to offering enticements to purchase and then withdrawing them after the purchase.
    Well if true then that's a pretty low move. 
Sign In or Register to comment.