If this move were really about acting in customers' best interests, they would reduce the fees for everyone. Doing this only for departing customers feels performative.
Does it lose files? Fails to write but gives an error? Fails to read sometimes? Silently fails?
But seriously, it seems like a fair-ish compromise. The 60 day limit is tough though. As long as you’re continuing your usage and not using offsite backups, ingress/egress isn’t probably too problematic. It’s only problematic when you try to suddenly egress all data you’ve ever stored, which you probably wouldn’t do unless you’re migrating away.
It's problematic to me. I run a system partly on GCP and partly on another provider. I'd like to move some of the stuff that's on the other provider over to GCP VMs, but I am prevented from doing so solely by the GCP egress fees.
My general complaint is that high egress fees prevent users from developing hybrid cloud solutions which mix components from different cloud vendors. Instead, you are forced to choose a platform, and then you're locked into it. That seems textbook anti-competitive. We shouldn't be grateful for the opportunity to switch vendors, we should be angry that "choosing a single cloud vendor" is a thing at all.