3 ms·

I risked reading below the line on the article, and among the frothing rants is one very salient point - not that long ago, old-guard public utility companies (

I risked reading below the line on the article, and among the frothing rants is one very salient point - not that long ago, old-guard public utility companies (the example in the comment is AT&T prior to the 1980s, but other firms in other countries are also good examples) had everyone as a customer, and nothing seemed to stop them from providing at least a bit of personal support. It may have been second-rate a lot of the time, but one could contact them, and directly - in the case of the telephone network, one could speak to an operator more or less immediately and more or less any time of day. Obviously it isn't the case that Google's support operation is in the exact same problem-space, but I was interested to realise that the pure statistical "there are too many users" argument doesn't immediately excuse them.

cm2187 8y ago
But you were paying money to that utility company. I have some sympathy for free services not offering customer support. I assume google's point is that an individual free user probably isn't generating enough value to justify customer support.
- amelius 8y ago
  Why don't they sell support contracts then? That would solve the whole problem.
dexen 8y ago
>not that long ago, old-guard public utility companies [had reams of money] Back then the phone service was rather expensive as compared to present day - especially long distance calls. Til very recent Google was free for most users; currently its taking a sizeable cut from Android app sales and Youtube donations & subscriptions. Not sure how that'll develop into the future.
- aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
  Google is definitely not free. Users pay with their data and their eyeballs. Framing this as “free” is cynical at best.