4 ms·
Hard disagree (edit for clarity - on it being "just" ending a subscription service). Presumably, the benefit of such a bundling service is that the cost of the
by hysan 3y ago
Hard disagree (edit for clarity - on it being "just" ending a subscription service).
Presumably, the benefit of such a bundling service is that the cost of the subscription + upgrade path is more beneficial than the separate cost of the services + a carrier subsidized phone / other separate phone payment plan. Ending this so close to the 2 year mark means that you lose out on being able to do a similar phone trade-in plan. You also get stuck with a phone that potentially has a shorter EOL span (security updates) than another phone that you could have purchased. This is also not considering users who made a service choice (or switch), for example, using Google Music over Spotify. You are now 2 years into being embedded into the Google ecosystem and the switching costs are much higher (effectively a form of vendor lock-in). To me, this is a massive rug pull and actually worse than the article paints.
- donalhunt 3y agoAgree. Probably legal in the US - strongly suspect Google would get pulled over the coals if they tried to do the same thing in Europe where consumer protections are better (Pixel Pass was not available in Europe afaik). Won't stop some cases being filed in the US anyway (but the terms were most likely worded specifically to allow such an outcome as others have pointed out). :/ For a company that fully understands their success is linked to customer trust, they sure like to push their luck…