3 ms·
It’s obvious that Google doesn’t want to incur the cost of client support staff.
by glitchc 7y ago
It’s obvious that Google doesn’t want to incur the cost of client support staff.
- luckylion 7y agoI'm sure that lots of people would be happy to pay good money for plenty of support issues if that meant not having to use the terrible Google help pages and issue forms, and not having to wait a week or ten for a response.
- glitchc 7y agoAgreed. It's the main reason why I've refrained from using Google for business activities, otherwise it would be a no-brainer. If something breaks, I need to be able to call or email someone and receive a response within 24 hours. Anything else is just not tenable from a reliability perspective.
- v7p1Qbt1im 7y agoIf you use Google services for business activities you‘d presumably pay for a support tier. For the consumer side I suspect, with over 2 billion users, it‘s pretty much impossible to offer human support at scale. That‘s not even taking into account malicious actors that would use the support as an attack vector. I might be mistaken. Is there an example of a company with that big a user base which offers human support for everyone?
- luckylion 7y agoI suppose you can argue users vs customers, but Amazon does a much better job. Their support isn't perfect, it's off-shored, but it's still good enough for most purposes, I think.
- dmoy 7y agoThis user is explicitly not paying for that old account. If you do pay for an account, you can get slightly better support. But the account in question is closed for non-payment.
- sct202 7y agoThey're ruining so much goodwill that they've built up over the years by cheaping out on customer support that even customer hostile companies like Comcast do better.