Microsoft announced yesterday that they plan to downgrade their various OneDrive storage offerings.
Office 365 Home, Personal and University customers are now limited to 1 TB of OneDrive storage instead of unlimited storage. The 100GB and 200GB OneDrive plans are discontinued. They will be replaced by a 50GB plan for $1.99 per month in early 2016. Free storage will be reduced from 15GB to 5GB for all free users. The camera roll bonus of 15GB will be discontinued.
Microsoft's reasoning for the OneDrive storage offering downgrades: "A small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings. In some instances, this exceeded 75 TB per user or 14,000 times the average."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Announces OneDrive Downgrades
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 69 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdccdevel on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:17PM
If microsoft can tell what's stored there, they can read what's stored there. That means no (or transparent to microsoft) encryption. Which means unknown third parties accessing my data.
No Thanks, I'll keep my files where I can control them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:24PM
See, I'd be more concerned about "suddenly reduced available hardware at the whim of a corporation"
Their service had a feature that people liked, and because they couldn't make enough of a profit on delivering what they promised, they just deliver something else instead.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:33PM
Which is why before placing your data on any cloud server, you encrypt it yourself before you upload it.
Never, ever, trust the providers promises that their encryption (if they have any to begin with) has your best interests in mind.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:50PM
... but also avoid 'services' that access your data. I seem to remember Microsoft's "Don't get Scroogled" campaign. Now they're sucking up personal information with Windows 10, looking at what's stored on OneDrive, etc. Nice.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:04PM
It might be hard to successfully sue them for looking at files, because their current privacy policy [microsoft.com] says
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:38AM
Well, who says that such privacy policies even matter in the eyes of the law?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:09PM
Clearly, you must be a pedo who is hiding all his pedo-things in OneDrive. What other reason could you have to make your data inaccessible to Microsoft and your friendly LEOs? Did I mention that the LEOs are your friend? THere is no reason not to trust them. They have your best interest at heart citizen!
Won't somebody think of the children? Pedo's do, they think of the children a lot!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday November 04 2015, @06:03PM
You're preaching to the choir on this forum, but most people hear the word "encryption" and immediately think "wow -- totally safe." I don't what the solution is. Obviously it should start with more honesty in marketing but that's just a pipe dream.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 04 2015, @08:20PM
Which is why before placing your data on any cloud server, you encrypt it yourself before you upload it.
The problem with that is the convenience factor.
OneDrive is wired right into Windows 8 and later. It shows up in your directory tree as if it were a regular directory.
With other versions of windows you need to add a utility to map it in, but with 8 and 10 its just there.
Once you give up Drag and drop file management, in favor of any sort of non-automated encrypt-the-store you might as
well just not use it at all.
There was never a promise of encryption, there was only vague promises of not making it public. With exceptions for
law enforcement of course, and the unwary user can make the whole thing public with a couple of
errant clicks: http://www.microsoft.com/security/online-privacy/onedrive.aspx [microsoft.com]
Even worse, if you happen to be a clueless (aren't they all?) habitual Facebook user, You run into this: [microsoft.com]
When you share content to a social network like Facebook from a phone that you have synced with your OneDrive account, your content is either uploaded to that network or a link to that content is posted to that network. Content posted to social networks and hosted on OneDrive is accessible to anyone on that social network.
For a while I used OneDrive to store various user manuals in PDF form, all available on the net (somewhere), just for convenience.
I've since disabled it in every computer and device I own, and removed any apps. I can still get at it via the web interface, but I no longer have any reason to do that.
There are some third party projects that propose to use all the cloud storage offerings and meld them into one drive, with redundancy and encryption.
But I haven't kept up on any of these enough to know if they are going to survive or be banned.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:09PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:34PM
DVDs are old-skool. Blue-ray and 4K are the pirates' booty now.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:06PM
In fairness, the movie collection wasn't the only thing in that 75TB usage quote. It also included backup of several entire PCs.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:12PM
Chances are that the people with Tb's didn't really car about encryption anyway - it wasn't "private" information, mostly commercial movies, etc., which may be why it was unencrypted.
Anyone with a brain storing confidential information of any amount would presumably be encrypting it and not show up except in "Other" file types.
(But they may not be renaming it, so it may well still be possible to identify the file type from the extension.)
Nobody really has Terabytes of confidential data. They may have confidential data, and may have Terabytes of data, and may be using cloud providers, but the intersection of the three must be miniscule, if there's any at all.
I'd guess most of these are used like old FTP sites, free web hosting, etc. before them - massive drop points for pirated content that you can link to direct and not need fancy software to download and watch.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:33PM
mostly commercial movies,
The actual quote from TFS and Microsoft's announcement was:
a small number of users backed up numerous PCs and stored entire movie collections and DVR recordings. In some instances, this exceeded 75 TB per user
So you are assuming things that weren't actually said.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday November 04 2015, @10:17PM
This whole thing is disheartening. Now where am I going to backup my random bits and files?
dd if=/dev/random of=/mnt/m\$_one_drive
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @05:17AM
Actually, this is an interesting idea.
1) create a new temporary e-mail address
2) create a new OneDrive account for the e-mail address
3) mount the onedrive
4) dd if=/dev/random of=/mnt/onedrive for however many GB you get for free
5) goto 1
And just keep doing that. Since MSFT doesn't throw the data away and if enough people do this, this could make the cost of running onedrive to MSFT very, very expensive and potentially, very very quickly (trust me, they don't throw it away; it actually gets replicated a couple of times across the globe and nothing ever gets deleted - I've been on the inside, it could be illegal porn, or copyright infringing shit or whatever because to them it's just random data, you could even create file that use names of recent movies and use .mkv or .mpeg extensions on the random data you write)
In the capacity planning, they count on people not using their total alloted capacity, but what if many 'people' would start to do so.
And if they ever come back saying: "why are you storing 'random' data"? Then you answer is: it's not random data, it's integers which I've copyrighted.
The only thing I can see where they would catch on and how they could mitigate this is by doing more stringent ID control - which can easily be overcome - or by checking how many accounts are associated with your IP. This could also easily be overcome by creating the account through a new Tor circuit or just finding a mechanism to get a new IP every time.
Once the account exists, it's just a matter of filling the fuckers up with /dev/random.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @07:26AM
They're encrypting brains now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:07PM
Brains have always been encrypted. Despite much effort, decryption attempts have remained of quite limited success.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:32PM
> No Thanks, I'll keep my files where I can control them.
Yeah... about that... didn't you get the memo about MS, Google and Apple agreeing that local storage is bad for you?
Expect them to buy WD, Seagate and the others pretty soon, to "shore up [their] own supply", and discontinue customer products.
Far-fetched? Yup! Unrealistic? Only if you trust Intel and Samsung to stay in that market, and those two are pretty fickle.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:30PM
If you offer "unlimited", do not be surprised when some users take you at your word and try to use an "unlimited" amount.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Zappy on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:38PM
Well "unlimited" (marketing speak) hasn't really been unlimited http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlimited [merriam-webster.com] for some time now. Why act surprised.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:42PM
Well it's worked for ISPs and cell providers, so why not MS?
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:40PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0618/Unlimited-means-unlimited-Did-AT-T-mislead-their-customers-video [csmonitor.com]
All evidence is that unlimited means unlimited by the offerer.
It might be physically impossible for a user to actually use an unlimited amount, but the offerer can't impose a limit (while advertising unlimited) without risking a 100 million dollar fine.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:46PM
Now, you get UNLIMITED* storage for you photos, videos and documents!
*Actual capacity lower. See our web site for details.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @06:02PM
"You get up to unlimited storage!"
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:14PM
More importantly,
Don't use it as an excuse to punish honest customers making reasonable use of it (the average user was using MORE than their arbitrary low limit anyway!), because you were an idiot and promised the world to those who would instantly take advantage of your offers to the maximum.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday November 04 2015, @07:10PM
I'll clarify: When AT&T started throttling its unlimited users they were making claims that they were downloading more than the average broadband user does. The reason I was clearly against them on the matter, however, was they were throttling people who were nowhere near that level of usage. They were claiming over 150 gigs within a month, but people who were using only a single gig (yes, 1 gig.) were getting throttling notices and suddenly their phones were at speeds comparable to land-line modems.
AT&T was clearly in the wrong. If they had focused on the provably abusive customers, I would probably side with them on the grounds that I don't want an abusive customer nearby interfering with my service. So let's talk about Microsoft for a moment.. but please keep in mind I'm taking their statement at face value, I don't know that there's more to the story as in AT&T's case, nor am I even really familiar with this service. They're claiming that somebody was using 75 TB. If true... actually I'm pretty damned impressed. That seems like a project to me to make that happen. So what should Microsoft have done? If there are trolls out there who actually go out of their way to test what 'unlimited' means, then how does a company advertise a service where they're saying: "Nah, you don't need to worry about limits. Just behave yourself." Do they say: "Unlimited within reason!" Do they say: "Unlimited but we judge when you're abusing it!" Do they say: "23498 trillion bits, you'll never use a fraction of it!" Do they say: "Unlimited*" with a blob of text at the bottom of the screen?
I'm genuinely asking. We're entering a phase where storage and transmission speed is outpacing our ability to consume it. We're already seeing far fewer restrictions on services as a result of it. I'm just wondering what the expectation is since it's clear that people will go out of their way to test the limits of these services.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 4, Funny) by DECbot on Wednesday November 04 2015, @07:35PM
They're claiming that somebody was using 75 TB.
Somebody setup a cloud-based swap partition for Firefox memory leaks.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @08:44PM
That seems like a project to me to make that happen
No kidding. I have ~2500 DVD/BR discs I have archived. That is coming in around 38TB. It took about a year just to copy them all. Then to drop them across an internet network connection would take a rather long time. Someone took some serious effort to pull off 75TB...
We're entering a phase where storage and transmission speed is outpacing our ability to consume it.
This is very true. I use a fraction of my movies and music. The media companies are just starting to realize it. They have so much content that 99.999% of it is nearly worthless (yet they still want to charge you 5 dollars to rent 1 movie). When you can access a service like netflix or pandora that has thousands of movies/songs on demand what is the value of buying/renting 1 DVD or 1 more song? It is pretty low. In fact it is nearly non existent. I think we will start to see a lot more of 'pay xyz per month to access catalog abc' and 'catalog' includes millions of items.
If storage goes up radically (and it seems to be) you may even end up with 'buy all of a studios movies' and you just plug it in and do not bother with streaming it. If they get into that idea you will see some serious 'reform' on copyright as well as they will want to cut out the overseas holders of debt. Something like 'buy the 1970s WB catalog' which would include all of the movies from WB in the 1970s.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 04 2015, @08:59PM
"Unlimited" means literally without limits. If there are any limits placed on it whatsoever, it's not unlimited. A 3rd grader could tell you this.
Marketing wankers need to stop trying to have their cake and eat it, too. I would rather be told the number I can use without them getting mad at me, than register for a service that has a secret number I'm never told, then at some point I exceed it and they get pissed.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:39PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 05 2015, @12:28AM
Sure.
No, it isn't. "Unlimited" means "we do not put an arbitrary limit on it", not "we provide you to exceed the laws of physics". For example a truly unlimited data plan is one where you could max out your connection 24/7. Of course even when maxing out that connection, you'll only be able to transfer a finite amount of data. But the point is, that amount is given by the inherent limitations of your connection, not by an arbitrarily limit set by the provider.
It's just like "all you can eat". If I'm offered an "all you can eat", I'd expect that I'm allowed to eat as much as I can, not limited by whatever the restaurant owner considers reasonable.
Now it's absolutely OK not to offer unlimited. If you can't provide unlimited, don't offer unlimited. It's as simple as that. But if you do offer unlimited, don't complain about users using it as advertised.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:39AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @05:23AM
Every month, you are have an infinite quota of breathable air! You also have an unlimited supply of water (except if you're in CA). You can literally run ALL your taps 24/7 and you'll never run out of it. You won't get an infinite amount of water, but you will get an unlimited amount of water.
Remember kids: Unlimited != Infinite
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @06:59AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:05PM
Then the water coming out of your tap will flow slower, and slower, and slower. But it will keep coming.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:45PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @06:26AM
Yes, the water company will see demand increasing more than they could handle and will use their increased profits to generate more supply. Microsoft offered free unlimited so they'd attract users from other companies and have the chance to convert them into paying customers. It was a calculated risk they specifically took. Sure, if they regret it they should stop offering unlimited storage for any new customers, but changing the terms on existing users should be considered fraud.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 05 2015, @09:01AM
My hard disk. Yes, my hard disk has a finite capacity, but I'm free to use all available capacity. It's not as if when I start filling up ma hard disk to more than 50%, the hard disk manufacturer would come and tell me that I'm not allowed to store more. Now if the hard disk gets full, I'll of course not be able to write more data on it (unless I erase other data first). But that's not an arbitrary limit imposed by the hard disk manufacturer, but simply because there's no space left on the device.
TV broadcasting. If I want I can watch TV 24/7, and the broadcaster will not tell me that it's now time to stop watching TV.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @10:33PM
And the real question: why should that even matter? If those heavy downloaders are downloading at 5pm in their local timezone and causing network congestion, then just add a fair-share rate limiter that throttles them only during the periods of congestion so their downloads don't adversely effect other users, but otherwise ignore them.
Of course, the real reason was profit driven. The CEO's saw opportunities to charge money for more downloading, and so to charge, they first had to cut off the heavy users (since they were the ones they wanted to bill anyway) in order to "convince" them to "pay up".
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday November 05 2015, @07:13AM
And the real question: why should that even matter?
For the simple reason that somebody doing that is reducing the quality of service for everybody else at that tower. Even that probably wouldn't be so bad except using that much data with an iPhone is very hard to do, even today, meaning they really went out of their way to pull that off. This happened long before LTE.
Of course, the real reason was profit driven.
Yep. That's why they were fined nearly a hundred million dollars.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1) by scarboni888 on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:20AM
Just purely based on the mathematical definiation of it isn't there ALWAYS someone who is above average with regard to anything you're measuring?
If the average is 100MB and I'm using 110MB that puts me above the average so then I can be considered abusive.
I'm not arguing to say there's no such thing as abusive users however a service provider arguing that 'there are some users who are using ABOVE average amount of services' seems rather meaningless to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @05:20AM
If you offer 'unlimited' and tell me I have 'unlimited', then I expect unlimited. What can I say, I'm a simple man!
It becomes abuse when I use more than what is alloted to me. And at what point am I using more than is alloted to me? I'll tell you when: as soon as you count one farther than infinity, that's when.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:33PM
Poor, poor microsoft... Getting so abused by their users who take advantage of microsoft's pure goodness of letting them pay for an unlimited account.
So much abuse that they have to suffer. Won't you take pity on them?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:46PM
To be fair, they probably didn't expect individuals to have that much bandwidth.
I couldn't upload 75TB to the cloud this decade, even if I had them to start with.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by hunchentoot on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:42PM
One of the reason I quit reading slashdot was because the community had a pattern of posting information laced with so much FUD that it became a waste of time to bother reading.
Microsoft in particular was something people seemed to especially enjoy publishing failures as news stories. Predictably after such a news story came online comments would roll in generally saying "haha M$ sucks again".
I dont understand the pleasure people derive from beating the same dead horse, it is neither productive, educational nor interesting and it isnt the characteristic of a respectable news site. It is illogical to "hate" everything about a corporate entity. It is even more illogical to choose to hate microsoft in particular more than any other major tech company such as google or apple.
I looked in soylent yesterday and today again. Looking at the xamarin article and now this the slashdot pattern is being re-played.
Compare this with the articles and community from ycombinator where people see both sides of the coin and more thoughtful posts are upvoted, while the empty articles and snide uninformative comments fall to the bottom. That is the kind of community I was hoping to see in soylent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:52PM
Unlike YCombinator, this site is not yet big enough for Microsoft to pay people so that you see "both sides of the coin".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by hunchentoot on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:58PM
If that is the prevailing community attitude then it never will be as big or respectable as a news source.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Bot on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:12PM
The only criterion for respectability is adherence to the truth, and that's not even done in the summary or the article but in the comments, so whine less and inform more :)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:22PM
I would rather be factual than respected. The respect I value the most is self-respect.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:52PM
Instead of complaining, how about writing one of those thoughtful posts that talks about the other side of this story?
(Score: 0, Troll) by hunchentoot on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:00PM
Youre right. Posting a thoughtful article takes time and research. I'm already spending too much time just replying to your comment during my day. For now I am just read-only however your statement stands, if my convictions were stronger I would participate more directly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @06:06PM
The mods here are backwards. AC 'insightfully' beats down the only reasonable 'troll' line of thinking from hunchentoot. Whose point that SN is going going gone green site already, may have not gone far enough, might even be more redit quality with the way this articles comments went.
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 04 2015, @06:44PM
AC 'insightfully' beats down the only reasonable 'troll' line of thinking from hunchentoot.
Wait, isn't that the way modding is supposed to work? Trolls like Hottentot get insighted? Enlightened? Exposed to sunlight so that they turn to stone, or at least "read only"?
And I must say, parenthetically, that I do not think I ever heard anyone, back at the Grand Inception of the Slashbellion that begat SoylentNews, say that what was wrong with the green site was that it was too anti-MS! If anything, it was too pro-MS! And who could be in favor of such a debilitating disease? And then to have both Multiple Sclerosis and have your unlimited cloud storage unilaterally un-unlimited? And the troll is asking for both sides of story? Is this a beta troll?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by hunchentoot on Thursday November 05 2015, @02:54AM
I got the message loud and clear.
Just as a bit of background I have been a software engineer by profession since the early 90s almost exclusively in the linux stack with a few gigs related to microsoft. I have never worked for microsoft nor do I represent them in any way.
I have felt the pain of developing for IE, interfacing with their build systems, their source control, their silverlight. I'm not blind to the short-sighted and greedy decisions over the years.
I was hoping for a community here that would step back and ponder the notion that MS as a company is no more worthy of vitrol than a company that en-masse outsources american jobs to the lowest bidder, or maybe engages in back-room price fixing of american employee wages, or sues developers for reverse engineering their hardware.
What I received in return was ad-hominem attacks and facile platitudes about not standing up for "truth". I can see this is an argument where there is no convincing this community of alternate perspective.
You win, I am enlightened to your view and exposed to the sun where I will turn to stone and rot away. I'll stay away from this site from now on it's obvious im too stupid to be here
(Score: 1, Troll) by Nerdfest on Wednesday November 04 2015, @07:11PM
Well, the the troll mod on the GP post is definitely unfair, in my opinion. I agree with the OT post of the original, but the troll mod is really being used as "disagree with your original premise". I really like the way that the Disagree mods work, tagging, but not down-voting. In general, I think Troll mods should be extremely rare.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Thursday November 05 2015, @06:06PM
Well, the the troll mod on the GP post is definitely unfair, in my opinion.
Seems fair to me. Hunchentoot complains that he perceives an unfair anti-Microsoft bias, but when asked to do something about it, complains that he doesn't have the time. He makes *multiple* posts complaining about the situation but refuses to actually do anything constructive to help fix the situation. Sounds like a troll to me!
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday November 04 2015, @06:56PM
I don't think it's only Microsoft, they aren't singled out. All large organizations are used like punching bags. You may only feel this way because you have a tighter affiliation with Microsoft than most people. I write C# most days so i depend on their existence. But i also have a sweet collection of Windows 10 bluescreens (pic taken by phone) that i use as desktop backgrounds in a 5 minute rotation. I can bash on MS at work and bash on Linux (hah!) at home. Microsoft is just a much much larger to shoot at.
That being said, this article, summary, and headline do not appear to be FUD. If you do see some, feel free to point it out.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday November 04 2015, @07:08PM
If truth is posted that is of interest to a community, THAT is important: the corporate driven TPP (from what was leaked) wants government funded news to stop... they want only publicly/CORPORATELY funded news... news paid for by big business which WILL, of course, not tell you about TRUTH (or only tell you the big brother truth).
Microsoft has REPEATEDLY screwed 'this community' in the past and continues to do so today: this is TRUTH. If you can't stand the TRUTH, leave the community: if not, you will have to put up with articles telling the TRUTH.
We (this 'community') like the TRUTH (and yes, maybe it is truth driven by an agenda???) but it is still the TRUTH, truth that keeps the 'community' informed.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @08:34PM
I couldn't agree more.
MS has done things that I thought Google was nuts to do, and they made it bigger and worse in some regards.
I never thought that line would get crossed, and then zillions of people comment that "oh well I jumped off the bridge so stop being a party pooper and jump to your death of privacy as well! Besides, its free, what are you complaining about?"
To me, they broke numerous promises, just with this one incident--business practices, marketing practices, their promises, and their commitments.
They said they dont look at the files and they clearly do in a clear format, or they are lying to us by saying an HTTPS SSL based tunnel is really an encrypted cloud. No, that's just tinted or blackened windows on the vehicle used to deliver the information. Pull it over via law enforcement or crime, and everything inside is unsecured in the way they promised, and further, they know what I have been sending and they said they wouldn't and couldn't look.
Then they wanted to charge me more for it because someone else ruined it for everyone. You know what? Fuck those people then, but most importantly, fuck you, because there is no way in hell -- no way! No way in hell that some place as big as MS did not predict or see this coming from a "users believing them and making choices based on those beliefs" perspective.
And, if I was a user and decided to rewrite the EULA in my favor, I could get tossed out on my ass for fraud or breaking the contract. They just have to post a notice that Darth Vader suggested that we pray he does not alter the deal any further!
Tell me one thing that's positive out of all of this, a truth from Microsoft that can be positive without spin? What is a single one? It's not that its better or faster or in my best interests to pay more for less. It's not secured better. In fact, they announced it isn't even as secure as what we all signed up for. So how is this good news? Where's the bias in facts, and while we're at it, would the people with the good news please present it now? I want to see if your news is factual and unbiased. Don't worry--many people here will be happy to argue any security or technological merits involving it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by http on Wednesday November 04 2015, @07:18PM
Rational thinking has an anti-MS bias. Their "fuck you, pleb" attitude towards their customers is generally far more important than the quality of their products.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday November 04 2015, @07:45PM
I thought "fuck you, pleb" was their product and software was just an additional option (with additional expense naturally). With that in mind, their attitude is totally rational.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Funny) by drpylons on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:49PM
That's a hell of a lot of porn, yo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:44PM
No it's not
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:13PM
From Windows 10's automatic file uploading nonsense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @10:03PM
TFS says
but Microsoft's announcement says
If the announcement is a lie, please feel free to correct me. I'm not a Onedrive customer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05 2015, @03:08AM
Correcting myself: taking another look, I see that the announcement [archive.org] also says
...but at least they're not immediately nuking the files of people who went over 1 TB.
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Wednesday November 04 2015, @10:38PM
I'm an Office 365 customer. I read the blog posting about a year ago that they were going to offer unlimited storage. I tried over the past year or so to get the unlimited deal, and was never able to. I even contacted Microsoft about it and got some bizarro answer as to why I still only had 1TB available to me. Now, a year later, it's gone before I even got it.
As it turns out, I only have 15.5GB up there anyway, so it doesn't really matter. I actually just finally signed up for the 1TB Dropbox Pro the other day, since Dropbox actually does (some of) the things I need it to do. It's frustrating that I'm paying for Dropbox when I'm already paying for OneDrive as part of Office 365, but Microsoft still has a way to go with this product.
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Thursday November 05 2015, @07:05PM
I use Dropbox for school just because it's better supported. I can store a ton of docx and PDFs in the free tier. I do wish BitTorrent Sync would take off and become better supported on mobile devices.