[bluesroo]

That argument that GP is making isn't that low prices are bad for consumers.

The argument is that amortized over the lifetime of the business, the prices are actually significantly higher because they are able to momentarily drive their prices down, eat the losses long enough to run their competition out of business, and then immediately break the low-priced agreements with their customers.

Sure, they may be a commodity product now. That shouldn't exempt them from holding up their agreements from when they were still competing for market space.

[freedomben]

Exactly.

It's also bad for consumers because they then have to migrate existing data to some new service (which is far from trivial for most consumers who don't know how to use rclone), and potentially face steep egress fees. Remember we're talking about the industry not just G. G doesn't charge egress fees for Drive, but many cloud storage providers do.

The strategy is "lock-in" and it's a primary part of the "go cheap or free to get customers" part, and it's bad for consumers. I'd much rather pay more in the short-term for cloud storage and not have to migrate later. Thank God for Back Blaze

[thinkharderdev]

> That shouldn't exempt them from holding up their agreements from when they were still competing for market space.

What agreement? They offered a service with no guarantees that it would be provided in perpetuity. If they offered "free unlimited storage for life" and then backed out of that based on some legalese on page 75 of their EULA then I agree that would be slimy. But that is not what happened here.

> they are able to momentarily drive their prices down, eat the losses long enough to run their competition out of business

This can happen and when it does it is anti-competitive. But that is not what happened in this case. Do you really think that Google thought they could drive AWS and Microsoft out of business with below cost storage on Google Drive? Seems unlikely. And even if they somehow managed to do that, they would immediately have competitors undercutting them on price again as soon as they raised prices enough.

What seems much more likely to me is they offered unlimited storage as a competitive feature of Google Workspace thinking it would still be profitable even with some customers using much more storage. But because we can't have nice things a bunch of people realized they could essentially use the unlimited plan as an ultra-cheap object storage service and were storing 100s of TB of data. Rather than raise everyone's prices to subsidize bad actors, it seems much more reasonable to just discontinue unlimited storage.

[bluesroo]

> What seems much more likely to me is they offered unlimited storage as a competitive feature of Google Workspace thinking it would still be profitable even with some customers using much more storage. But because we can't have nice things a bunch of people realized they could essentially use the unlimited plan as an ultra-cheap object storage service and were storing 100s of TB of data. Rather than raise everyone's prices to subsidize bad actors, it seems much more reasonable to just discontinue unlimited storage.

This is the internet. Google has been around since the dawn of the popular internet. At this point, no one should be naive to the abuses that internet-facing services regularly encounter.

The correct thing to do here is not offer a fantasy service to customers. Now that they've offered a fantasy service, they should be on the hook for actually assisting the customers that have been locked into their service.

Admittedly, there's naiveté on both sides here. There difference is that the company is the one with the money and power, and they instigated this relationship by offering the service in the first place. They should shoulder the burden of fixing the problems they have created by attempting to undercut the market when it was beneficial to them.