3 ms·

It does do what it says on the box. You're not required to download any of the apps in order to use Google Drive. My contention is that the OP claims that they

It does do what it says on the box. You're not required to download any of the apps in order to use Google Drive. My contention is that the OP claims that they deserve some kind of reimbursement because "they're paying for it" but the "it" here is not the app, it's the service. They're paying for online storage. There are several ways to sync your files to that service. The Google Drive app is a free option. He's paying for the service, not the app. Note that even you said "service" in your description of what it is.

Dylan16807 9y ago
The syncing apps are absolutely part of the package.
- dpkonofa 9y ago
  They're a part of the package but they are not what the user is paying for. If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. People aren't paying for the app, they're paying for the service and, at least in this case, the service is still working. If the OP was actually concerned with finding a solution to their problem (which is absolutely an edge case) and not just being a squeaky wheel, they'd pay $30 for InSync or find another free tool that syncs with Google Drive. The Google app is a bonus provided by Google to make the use of their service easier. The OP complaining about being a paying customer is pointless because what they're paying for is still completely useable.
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    No. It's literally "Store, sync, and share files easily." [1] There is no way to sync a device without an app. The app is not a bonus, it is a core feature of the service. [1] https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/ https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/
    - dpkonofa 9y ago
      And it does exactly that for 99.9% of users. The app is not what the user is paying for, though, and he doesn’t deserve a refund just because it doesn’t work for his particular situation.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. You just assert this as if it was self-evident, but it's not. The same feature can be offered for free and as a paid component of a package, just like the same code can be licensed to some under the GPL and to others under a proprietary license. In this case, syncing is part of the service being purchased, and the means to achieve that is absolutely part of the package, even if it's also offered for free to others.
chrischen 9y ago
Drive is terrible then if what it says on tje box can’t deliver working sync clients. Dropbox delivers working sync clients out of the box, even though you could just use their web interface.
- dpkonofa 9y ago
  First off, I'm not sure why everyone is using the phrase "what is says on the box". There is no box for this service. Services don't come in boxes and the website doesn't say anything about paying for an app. You're paying for the service and the service continues to work. If you don't like the app and that makes using the service so much of a challenge, use another app with Google Drive or switch to Dropbox. The OP clearly has to use Google Drive because Google is the only service that offers unlimited storage space and they just want to be the squeaky wheel by falsely equating the app with the service that they're actually paying for.
  - Pyxl101 9y ago
    You're making an extremely nitpicky and useless distinction. If a service provider offers native clients for a set of supported platforms, for use with their storage service, a natural and reasonable expectation is that they will work. If a video game publisher sells a game for Mac and Windows, and one of those platforms doesn't work, then the affected customer is entitled either to customer support or a refund. The advertised product (native client on a certain platform) isn't working as advertised.
    - dpkonofa 9y ago
      Of course they should work. You're making a false equivalence, though. A video game is a product that you've paid for. The user in this case is not paying for the app, they're paying for the service. Just because Google offers the app to use with their storage service doesn't mean that their support should refund money to the user when the service itself is functioning exactly as advertised and intended. My contention is 100% with the OP's insistence that they deserve a refund because they're "paying for it". They're not paying for the app and the service is working so why is a refund in order?

Dylan16807 9y ago

The syncing apps are absolutely part of the package.

dpkonofa 9y ago
They're a part of the package but they are not what the user is paying for. If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. People aren't paying for the app, they're paying for the service and, at least in this case, the service is still working. If the OP was actually concerned with finding a solution to their problem (which is absolutely an edge case) and not just being a squeaky wheel, they'd pay $30 for InSync or find another free tool that syncs with Google Drive. The Google app is a bonus provided by Google to make the use of their service easier. The OP complaining about being a paying customer is pointless because what they're paying for is still completely useable.
- jfoutz 9y ago
  No. It's literally "Store, sync, and share files easily." [1] There is no way to sync a device without an app. The app is not a bonus, it is a core feature of the service. [1] https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/ https://gsuite.google.com/products/drive/
  - dpkonofa 9y ago
    And it does exactly that for 99.9% of users. The app is not what the user is paying for, though, and he doesn’t deserve a refund just because it doesn’t work for his particular situation.
- icebraining 9y ago
  If free users and paid users both have access to the app, then it's not a paid feature. You just assert this as if it was self-evident, but it's not. The same feature can be offered for free and as a paid component of a package, just like the same code can be licensed to some under the GPL and to others under a proprietary license. In this case, syncing is part of the service being purchased, and the means to achieve that is absolutely part of the package, even if it's also offered for free to others.

chrischen 9y ago

Drive is terrible then if what it says on tje box can’t deliver working sync clients. Dropbox delivers working sync clients out of the box, even though you could just use their web interface.

dpkonofa 9y ago
First off, I'm not sure why everyone is using the phrase "what is says on the box". There is no box for this service. Services don't come in boxes and the website doesn't say anything about paying for an app. You're paying for the service and the service continues to work. If you don't like the app and that makes using the service so much of a challenge, use another app with Google Drive or switch to Dropbox. The OP clearly has to use Google Drive because Google is the only service that offers unlimited storage space and they just want to be the squeaky wheel by falsely equating the app with the service that they're actually paying for.
- Pyxl101 9y ago
  You're making an extremely nitpicky and useless distinction. If a service provider offers native clients for a set of supported platforms, for use with their storage service, a natural and reasonable expectation is that they will work. If a video game publisher sells a game for Mac and Windows, and one of those platforms doesn't work, then the affected customer is entitled either to customer support or a refund. The advertised product (native client on a certain platform) isn't working as advertised.
  - dpkonofa 9y ago
    Of course they should work. You're making a false equivalence, though. A video game is a product that you've paid for. The user in this case is not paying for the app, they're paying for the service. Just because Google offers the app to use with their storage service doesn't mean that their support should refund money to the user when the service itself is functioning exactly as advertised and intended. My contention is 100% with the OP's insistence that they deserve a refund because they're "paying for it". They're not paying for the app and the service is working so why is a refund in order?