Removing free user data is unfortunate, but understandable that it might eventually come to that.
replyA monthly subscription to regain access is questionable to me, since it'd mean they are still storing the images. A one-time fee could be justified for the cost of recovering the data from cold storage, but risks incentivizing intentionally luring in users then unexpectedly holding their data as leverage to have them pay up as a business model.
Claiming a user can pay to recover their photos, while not actually having anything to restore, is misrepresentation.
Not only that, but there is a cost for retrieval and transmission especially if you are in cold storage. It's much cheaper to just mark it for deletion than it is to get it back.
replyIf it was just that, I'd be okay-ish with it (even though it started out as a service). But pushing a monthly subscription for a 1-time action? Man.....
replyIf it requires nothing more than a click to cancel, it seems like you'd be happier in life if you viewed such a thing as merely a two-step process (signup, get what you need, cancel immediately) rather than a serious commitment to spend $5 a month for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, everyone in business is now required to do this 'wishful thinking' that people will commit to everything. I laugh sometimes at items that Amazon hilariously suggests that I "Subscribe & Save" to!
replyWhen signup is one click, and cancellation requires a phone call... then I'm right there with you with the pitchforks!
Haha, that's fair! You know how it is – I'm not mad, just disappointed :P
replyYou just described most app purchases these days, sadly.
reply[k]
It was happy to use it to make profit though...
replyIf they can't, then why did they offer to (or at least give the impression that they were going to)?
replyWell they did store it for free, they are just holding it hostage. They didn’t say “pay or we’ll delete it”, they said “pay if you want it” and they’ll probably continue to store it for free continuously until you pay.
replyWell, they didn't according to the article, the storage was empty. But the user discover that only after subscribing.
replyWell, it sounds like they actually will, with the intent of using it to lure you in as a customer.
replyI don't think your comment represents the situation very well. They allowed the user to upload the data and they're storing the data regardless, right?
replyThat's fair push back. In defense, my comment was motivated by the OP's assertion (multiple times) that this is merely an example of corporate greed. I don't know what the original user-agreement was, but it seems to me that common sense would say that you have to make money some way. If this business at one point offered a free service and at some point market pressures showed them that wasn't going to work, so they needed to do something else to remain solvent. Egress is not free, so merely uploading and storing is not an argument for free retrieval.
reply