Google Promises Unlimited Storage; Cancels; Tells Journalist Life's Work Deleted
Google’s phase-out of an “unlimited” Workspace storage plan has left a journalist with 237 TB of video facing deletion of his last remaining copy, after the FBI previously seized all his local drives. Commenters debate how much blame lies with Google’s misleading “unlimited” marketing and poor off‑boarding versus the user’s reliance on a single cloud provider, and note that seven days’ notice is nowhere near enough time to migrate hundreds of terabytes. More broadly, the thread questions the trustworthiness of big tech cloud services, the ethics of bait‑and‑switch pricing, and the need for redundant, self-controlled backups for irreplaceable data.
Reliance on Cloud Storage vs Local Backups
- Many argue cloud should be a secondary copy only; irreplaceable data (family photos, code, “life’s work”) should live on hardware you own, with off-site redundancy.
- Others note they deliberately accept the risk of total digital loss rather than manage complex multi-site storage.
- Several emphasize that most users mistakenly treat cloud as primary storage, not backup.
Unlimited Plans, Sustainability, and False Advertising
- Strong criticism of “unlimited” offers that later gain caps or get canceled; many call this deceptive marketing.
- Some say heavy users “abused” an obviously unsustainable deal; others counter that using what was sold as “unlimited” is legitimate and not a loophole.
- Broad agreement that “unlimited” should either mean truly no limits or not be allowed in marketing at all.
Timeline, Responsibility, and “Victim-Blaming”
- Dispute over notice: earlier emails reportedly said the account would become read‑only but not that data would be deleted; a later email gave 7 days to avoid deletion.
- Several say 7 days is mathematically insufficient to move ~237–250 TB, even with excellent bandwidth.
- Some blame the user for not acting during months of read‑only warnings; others argue this expectation is unreasonable given Google’s own wording and lack of clear deletion timelines.
Role of the FBI and Law Enforcement Seizures
- Thread repeatedly notes that the user’s local drives and backups were seized in an FBI raid, leaving the cloud as the only remaining copy.
- Some see law enforcement seizures as a more fundamental threat than cloud unreliability, citing other stories of long-term device confiscation with no charges.
Google’s Trustworthiness and Support Culture
- Many describe Google as an unreliable partner: frequent product shutdowns, opaque account bans, and near-nonexistent human support.
- Comparisons favor AWS and Azure for long-term commitment and responsive support, despite higher or complex pricing.
- Some report positive GCP experiences, but even they are wary of strategic dependence on Google.
Costs and Practicalities of Storing / Moving 250 TB
- Rough back-of-envelope: storing that much in S3/Backblaze/Azure is hundreds to low thousands of dollars per month; local arrays or tape are thousands up front.
- Several mention Drive’s daily download limits and practical throughput, making fast evacuation hard even with planning.
- Tools like rclone, migration services, and tape are suggested, but all require money, time, and expertise.
Broader Market and Regulatory Concerns
- Comments link “unlimited” and below-cost offerings to anti-competitive tactics and VC-subsidized bait‑and‑switch.
- Some call for stronger regulation around predatory pricing and misleading “unlimited” claims.
Practical Takeaways
- Don’t rely on any one provider (especially Google) for critical data.
- Maintain multiple, tested backups, ideally including offline and off-site copies.
- Treat “unlimited” and very cheap cloud offers as temporary, high‑risk deals, and plan exit strategies in advance.