You can’t abuse something that has no limit. Stop calling things unlimited and then blaming users when they are not.
I read somewhere about someone who took a zip file, copied it and zipped it with the copy over and over again until the file size ballooned to petabytes. I would consider that sort of pointless use of storage to be abuse.
Then put an * and say that there are a couple well documented exceptions, like zip bombing or don’t call it unlimited and call it up to 100TB for x dollars.
I just don't get it. If it's unlimited - in what universe is using it beyond 15TB considered abuse?
I get the reseller part, I get the stupid chia mining part. But if they can say that was the problem - then get rid of those users, as clearly you have already identified them. Don't shift the blame away from your dumbass marketing team onto your users and play an innocent company.
I can't believe how much support dropbox is getting. People seem to accept, without questioning, every bollocks pr statement these days.
I worked for a company that was offering unlimited storage to its too tier customers.
I brought it up in a meeting when we first started talking about it.
"Okay but you don't mean unlimited. That's bad PR waiting to happen."
What did they say to your remark?
Roughly
"what do you mean?"
"You cannot offer something that doesn't exist. If Amazon decided to become a client, we'd be in a world of hurt."
"It's fine none of our clients use more than a few hundred gigs"
This was in 2018. They still offer unlimited storage. So I guess, what do I know?
Wow that’s low. If I’m paying for unlimited I expect to at least go over 2TB since I have the space
Got thrown out of a window
Especially since 15TB isn't all that big. It's not tiny, but it's also not out of the reach of a reasonably high end computer, or for a video editor who might need a lot of space for raws/recordings.
It's not like they're looking at users eating up Petabytes of data, or something silly, where some restriction might be understandable.
Wait, the cap is 15TB? I run a small image processing business and I'm right about there with my businesses data, currently.
...guess its time to NAS, but I'd really rather pay someone else than assume the hassle
How the fuck do you abuse unlimited access? This is just a company blaming an idea that was always going to be unsustainable on their customers and not their own damn lack of forethought.
It was a business plan and they found hardly any of the plan subscribers were actually businesses, and I'm guessing reselling your unlimited data was against the ToS.
It was a business plan and they found hardly any of the plan subscribers were actually businesses
And why the fuck would that matter? If they can't handle some random's porn and piracy collection, how the fuck would they handle a legit business? lol
Reselling an account would hurt their bottom line, but still have no effect on providing the storage. Imposing a limit doesn't stop that though, other than perhaps by making the product worthless and therefore unworthy of reselling.
Corporate bootlickers: OMG they're actually using our unlimited service as if they were unlimited. THIS IS ABUSE!1!
You can’t abuse unlimited. That’s why it’s called “UNlimited.” I hate this two faced, corporate back sludge that always, and I mean always, puts it on the consumer as if they did something wrong. When in reality, it’s the company that is redlining or needs to boost those unsustainable goal of doubling revenue every quarter, ad infinitum.
The real narrative is Dropbox needs money so they are scrambling to cut every expense. No matter what spin they put on it.
If they were just honest about it and say "this is expensive so we need to put the prices up", I would have a lot more respect for that.
everything here is wrong, and blaming the users is wrong. Please try to read past the PR speak. and shame on ars for not doing that.
the unlimited plan is going away to force companies that were using it, to switch to their new unlimited plan which is now called Enterprise and will generate a lot more money for them. The plan still exists, they've changed the requirements so you can only get it if you spend a lot of money.
Users: Use the product as it was designed and advertised.
Corporations: 
I remember in the 90s, my dial-up provider started offering an "unmetered" plan with no per minute charge (for younger people, believe it or not we were once charged by the minute for connecting to the internet). After a short while we were inundated with emails from the ISP complaining that people were "abusing the service" by going on the internet for "hours at a time". Just reminded me of this and how it's an old excuse.
No, you can't "abuse" an unlimited service by using too much, it's unlimited.
Then it was never unlimited to begin with, wtf?
Like when Microsoft took away unlimited OneDrive and wrote a passive aggressive blog post about how some dude used it to store like 75TB of movies
Don't offer unlimited if you can't deliver unlimited. FFS
Don't use the fucking word unlimited if it has limits? Something that has a limit, no matter how high, is not unlimited.
Eh... If you offer unlimited you have to live with unlimited.
Fuck these people but thats also on Dropbox.
What they meant to say was "We didn't have the foresight to monetize these heavy users, so we will be doing that now. But first we'll create the problem..."
Calling it “abuse” is a weird PR move. If your service is good enough, this is bound to happen with an unlimited storage plan. This is basically a win on their part since they got people to sign up for their service. Why shame your user base?
"Abused"? Is it unlimited or not? I don't see how as much as you need can be taken too literally. It's either true or it isn't.
"Abused" service they were advertised. Now it is misadvertisement.
This reminds me of how Skype always had limits in the fine print of its unlimited calling plan back in the day when we paid for minutes on cellphones.
Or, y'know, how current cellphone data plans are only unlimited up until the point where you've used enough and then become "deprioritized."
Or how backblaze offers unlimited plans on Windows and Mac but not on Linux because Linux users tend to actually know how much storage they're using.
Companies have a number that is the profitable point for whatever unlimited plan they're offering. They just want to be able to advertise "unlimited" since that's what customers want and they hope people don't go over their "profitable usage" metric.
My only concern about throttling it as 5TB for small organizations is that I could see that being a problem for freelance video editors. 8K video can take up a lot of space.
At some point though I feel like if someone would be using Dropbox for 8k videos, they should be wondering if they are using the right solution for their needs. I would say absolutely not.
Temporary storage of, say, a documentary with hundreds of hours of video so it can be transferred from the cameras to the editor who is working remotely seems like exactly the sort of thing Dropbox is for.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
