> In part I want to agree with you because I get the same version of random calls but for different reasons. But the truth is the difference between what we (or

> In part I want to agree with you because I get the same version of random calls but for different reasons. But the truth is the difference between what we (or anyone) is doing and what google is doing is google makes plenty of money that they can use to throw at the problem. This line of thinking is based on a fundamentally flawed view of google. In almost all cases, you are _not_ the customer. You are the product. A business does not provide service to it's product. The farmer does not provide counseling and custom beds for all of their cows. They make sure that overall the heard is healthy. They cull the old or the sick, and except for the monetary loss if one runs off or gets eaten (free range cattle) they generally don't care. You are not the customer. You are the cattle. You output useful data which google spends a lot of money collecting, and then turning around and selling to their customer: the adverstiser. They have a massive pile of money in no small part because they do not build massive service centers staffed with thousands of people who each need health care and computers. > 3) The solution for Google is really easy though: charge some fee for human support that keeps customer service requests to a manageable level. When it's a genuine issue, people will pay some fee to get an actual trained person to pay attention to and hopefully resolve. they already do this. Google's enterprise products do come with some level of support. Not saying it's "good" support, but this is an existing thing.