OK, I won't gloat too much.
I've often stated my opposition to clouds, even in the face of vehement opposition (one of my comments from last month on this subject was downvoted quite a bit due to my oversimplification of what clouds actually are) but yet again we see that clouds have their limits.
There's no such thing as "unlimited". Everything has a limit somewhere. Consider that a lot of the reason behind terms such as "cloud storage", "unlimited" and "free" are used by marketing types to sucker in those people who like the idea of getting something for as near to nothing as can possibly be achieved. The term "bait and switch" has been used by quite a few people and it's nothing to be surprised at.
The server farms they use to provide these clouds may be huge but at the end of the day they are just a bunch of clustered servers with lots of storage and that has a limit. If anyone is surprised at what Microsoft are doing, then they really need to get a clue.
But while I have always stated that I shall never use a cloud for anything unless I know that I can trust the provider with its security, putting my files at the mercy of a company that will suddenly change the conditions of storage purely because somebody else is taking the piss or, as it seems here, the company didn't plan its capacity properly (any ITIL folk here will know what I mean) isn't going to happen.