Maybe they're intentionally breaking the feature for people who use it, maybe they're leaving heavier users at the bottom of the migration schedule, whatever they're doing, it's clearly intentional, it's a large issue, it affects many of us, it has very specific features that only benefit them while harming us and it also induces people to pay for upgrades they don't really need, accidentally, when those folders are duplicated on the guest's account.
This sound too much of a manicured problem that's a design feature, not a defect. Just something undocumented like your ISP throttling their top 10% users, for example, who actually pay for 1 Gbps because they actually want to use it while using as many resources as 20 "regular profitable users" that pay extra for all those features only to watch YouTube videos (I do that most of the time to, but you get my point).
It is very likely they could have made a mistake first, but then saw a spike on support requests associated with increased sales.
It does not take to be a genius to design this issue "from scratch" though. They are streamlining their operations to keep what's most profitable.
They might, indeed, cut this service and say not enough people were using it or even gas light us saying they never had such functionality and that we always had to use the web to access shared folders LOL.
Also, even using their web interface we can NOT copy files from one side to the other.
Anyways, it's ok. That's life. Accept what we can change, right?
I'll adjust my usage accordingly if necessary. The feature was very important to me but I can surely workaround. Where there's a will, there's a way.
I don't think they'd go as far as claim whatever we do to bypass the issue is against their terms of service because they're clearly on paper saying they're working to FIX it. Even if they might not be (or doing it slowly, who knows).
Maybe their target are small businesses that might share a large folder with many users that aren't even paid subscribers. Perhaps that's their major target and we're "conspiracing away" a bit beyond what they want to do. Specially considering it's only natural family users would want to share folders between themselves. That's the only use I had for it when starting, only moved to have more than one because they refused to sell larger plans back then.
I don't think it's fair to double the price when you get 2 TB, or quintuple if you get 5 TB. It's not even the same rate since 1x = 6TB, not 1TB and that would also mean they are valuing their Office Suite and other services at zero.