If you’re asking whether the rules for services you’ve paid for are different to the rules for services you haven’t paid for then yes, absolutely.
If someone is providing a service at no cost, they have no obligation to continue that service, because you have not provided them anything in exchange for anything.
“I want” is not a valid legal argument for having a right to something.
So then when you buy a product, you’re not allowed to expect product service? And open cloud shouldn’t be allowed to be expect when you purchase a product? What’s the issue with cloud sourcing being involved in product purchase? When you buy a new computer, you’re also paying for an OS. What’s the problem in expecting a full use of their services when you purchase a PC?
The fact that all of those services have costs - so what you’re effectively saying is that the companies should pay for these things for you whenever you demand it
If they promised you X service for a certain period of time when they purchased something, then you have a right to that service for that period of time. But if they didn’t do that, it just happens that the same company sells that service as a separate product to what you bought, then of course you don’t have a right to it.
Let’s talk about Microsoft specifically. They have the most notable OS in world, a gaming console, word, doc, and they have stock in Google. You telling me they can’t afford free cloud storage?
Okay, I too could afford to pay for your OneDrive subscription, but I’m not going to because - frankly - I don’t care about your cloud storage needs.
The fact they’re technically capable of providing you something for free has nothing to do with whether they are legally or morally obligated to do so.
It’s not free. They’re also completely capable of including it in a package or bundle. I don’t understand what’s difficult about that way of thinking. You buy a computer which has the operating system so you’re paying for the hardware and software. So why not provide cloud storage included in that? Why am I the asshole with that way of thinking?
They don’t do that, because as a service, it continues to cost them money to provide it as time goes on.
That’s not their business model, and acting like it’s equivalent to ransomware for them to not use the business model you’re demanding they switch to is absurd.
If you want to keep your cloud services, pay the subscription cost, it’s that simple.
So you’re comparing things that have been paid for to things that haven’t been paid for?
You have neither paid to load your groceries, nor access to your files.
Are you a sovereign citizen by any chance?
Are you trying to create a narrative because you have no other way to logically argue with me by chance? You see how this works?
This is why metaphors don’t work. Files are not groceries, arguments that apply to one don’t always apply to the other.
If you’re asking whether the rules for services you’ve paid for are different to the rules for services you haven’t paid for then yes, absolutely.
If someone is providing a service at no cost, they have no obligation to continue that service, because you have not provided them anything in exchange for anything.
“I want” is not a valid legal argument for having a right to something.
So then when you buy a product, you’re not allowed to expect product service? And open cloud shouldn’t be allowed to be expect when you purchase a product? What’s the issue with cloud sourcing being involved in product purchase? When you buy a new computer, you’re also paying for an OS. What’s the problem in expecting a full use of their services when you purchase a PC?
The fact that all of those services have costs - so what you’re effectively saying is that the companies should pay for these things for you whenever you demand it
If they promised you X service for a certain period of time when they purchased something, then you have a right to that service for that period of time. But if they didn’t do that, it just happens that the same company sells that service as a separate product to what you bought, then of course you don’t have a right to it.
Let’s talk about Microsoft specifically. They have the most notable OS in world, a gaming console, word, doc, and they have stock in Google. You telling me they can’t afford free cloud storage?
Okay, I too could afford to pay for your OneDrive subscription, but I’m not going to because - frankly - I don’t care about your cloud storage needs.
The fact they’re technically capable of providing you something for free has nothing to do with whether they are legally or morally obligated to do so.
You’re not the centre of the universe, sorry.
It’s not free. They’re also completely capable of including it in a package or bundle. I don’t understand what’s difficult about that way of thinking. You buy a computer which has the operating system so you’re paying for the hardware and software. So why not provide cloud storage included in that? Why am I the asshole with that way of thinking?
They don’t do that, because as a service, it continues to cost them money to provide it as time goes on.
That’s not their business model, and acting like it’s equivalent to ransomware for them to not use the business model you’re demanding they switch to is absurd.
If you want to keep your cloud services, pay the subscription cost, it’s that simple.