4 ms·
There are many great examples of Google failing to internationalise, but Google Fi requiring a US billing address is not one of them. Fi is a domestic cell pho
by untog 9y ago
There are many great examples of Google failing to internationalise, but Google Fi requiring a US billing address is not one of them.
Fi is a domestic cell phone service, it provides international roaming as a bonus to its US customers - at much increased cost (to them) compared to domestic service. I wouldn't be surprised if roaming permanently was a violation of their terms of service (it is for Three in the UK, who provide a similar perk)
You can of course criticise Google for not launching domestic service in countries across the world, but in fairness to them, that's not a small problem.
- scrollaway 9y agoYou're making my point. They made a domestic cell phone service and, despite the service working worldwide, failed to bring it to other countries.
- sneak 9y ago“working” in this sense could mean “operating at a loss”.
- scrollaway 9y agoUber is operating at a loss worldwide. So, yes, "working" could mean "operating at a loss", it's still a valid example. Also it's not like Fi was my entire point. My actual point was that Google has an utter crap track record at launching stuff outside the US.
- untog 9y agoYou're ignoring my point. The costs internationally are far higher than they are domestically. The roaming agreements they have with those networks almost certainly prohibits full time use by a customer. Sometimes there are valid reasons to not launch a service, particularly when the whole point of it is to be low cost! I agree with criticism when Google doesn't internationally launch something they control entirely (say, the Pixel phone). But this is not that.
- scrollaway 9y agoI'm not sure what you're trying to say here, I'm not claiming there isn't a valid line of reasoning that gets us to the end state. Of course there are reasons and of course some of them might be outside Google's control.