If you go to an all you can eat buffet, ignore the plates they give you, and start filling up your own takeaway boxes with days worth of food, you'd expect to be kicked out.

No one would think this is unreasonable. You're not paying for unlimited food forever, you're paying for all you can eat in the restaurant right there.

▲

gck1 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm confused by this repeat analogy here. There's 0 offerings with all you can eat type of deal. No AI service is offering that.

They all have amounts defined in their service agreements of how much you can eat and in what intervals.

▲

BoorishBears an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm confused why the presence (or lack of) a limit is relevant to the pretty simple analogy...

A buffet is saying "pay $X to eat food one plate at a time [up to 100 lbs of food]", and you show up and start shoveling the food into your bag. Does not really matter if we remove the 100lbs part.

Could you technically eat the same amount of food one plate a time? Sure. But if everyone does this, $X needs to be significantly more: even for the people who eat one plate at a time.

You could also argue they're playing a mean trick and deceiving people because technically someone could eat the same amount of food 1 plate at a time...

But they priced $X based on how much the average person can eat, not how much food they can carry in their arms. If the limits are so high that people don't leave hungry eating 1 plate at a time, it still seems like a fair deal.

I'm not exactly the type to jump for joy at siding with a corporation, but I really don't get why people are in a hurry to ruin a good thing.

	▲	danpalmer 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think there's even a limit. The limit is a soft limit enforced through the UX of the tool, the features it provides, or even how it's marketed. There are always going to be high cost users and low cost users, service providers know this and build it into their revenue modelling. Another example is home internet connections. They're unmetered where I live, but I'm also told I can't run public internet services on it. Why? Because with "personal/home usage" there's just a practical limit to how much I can use my ~1Gbps pipe, whereas if I ran a public service I might max out that pipe. I'm a pretty heavy user (~60GB a day), but that's a world of difference from the >10TB I could theoretically hit. > but I really don't get why people are in a hurry to ruin a good thing This is the crux of it. I like services limited by practicality because they're a heck of a lot cheaper. If people want more usage there's always API billing, they just have to pay for what they're actually using.

▲

danpalmer an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly. And yet that's what some people are doing, they're sneaking in their takeaway containers and getting stroppy at being banned.

▲

josephcsible 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, if you did that, they'd start by saying "hey, stop that", not jump immediately to "you're banned from every Golden Corral location for the rest of your life".