3 ms·
Is there anybody here who can give an insider's view on this case? I'm aware of the problems of scaling support to a huge scale, and contexts where the communi
by pizza234 6y ago
Is there anybody here who can give an insider's view on this case?
I'm aware of the problems of scaling support to a huge scale, and contexts where the communication of the termination causes is an issue in itself (e.g. to protect internal business logic).
However, in cases like this, being hostile seems an intentional decision - specifically, by hiding the reasons. Is this truly intentional on Google's side?
- 13415 6y agoThe question seems odd to me. How could the letter he received, its tone, and everything else in this case be unintentional?
- pizza234 6y agoI'm trying to play devil's advocate, in order to better understand the real-world dynamics of support at large scale. Every once in a while, some insider pops in discussions like this, and says "you don't know support at large scale etc.etc.". Therefore, with both sides of the story at hand, a productive assessment could be done. To clarify, I do think Google has a just "f*ck them all" approach to support; for example, there could be paid support plans for people who made a large investment. But I need to hear the devil :-)