To be fair, email was not something that people really paid for, ever. It was bundled with your internet subscription service, at least in France, this is how t

To be fair, email was not something that people really paid for, ever. It was bundled with your internet subscription service, at least in France, this is how the vast majority of people got their first email address (some still use it, some accounts being over 20 years old). What Google did was actually provide a better service at no added cost, so technically "free" competing with already "free" (you were paying for it in the internet subscription but since it is bundled, there was no way to offload the cost anyway). The reason I got my google account was bigger storage (1GB was a lot back then), bigger joint files support and just better webmail overall. To get your Gmail there was even a waiting list if I'm not wrong, it was just that much better! Nowadays things are a bit different since email has become something everybody relies on instead of just a new cheaper way to communicate, so the case could be made that it should be paid for. But at this point everybody would go back to their provider supplied address. The rest of Google stuff was built with ADS money but the thing is that they kind of stand on their own nowadays. Plenty of businesses use their suite and regular users having access for free is a nice side effect. I do agree that it's a kind of distorted competition since you can't really compete with all the "free" money Google is getting. But what are you going to do? I feel like most things in the world got there by not playing by the rules. I do wish it was a more even playing field, but at least Google is providing a lot of value unlike Apple that makes you pay for subpar stuff and still find a way to abuse the rules in a worse way. Some Google properties like Maps have no alternative that is on the same level and not even Apple with all its money has gotten close (today's Apple is seriously incompetent but that's another story). The problem is at the core of internet economics, the network/scaling effects are so huge that it feels like it should basically be a public utility. Not unlike a national train network, it would be wasteful to build multiple parallel tracks and have them compete. As for YouTube, I feel that's actually the thing that is the least legitimate. If it weren't "free", I wouldn't pay for much of the content on there, much of it being low quality entertainment and a lot of the good stuff competing for funding from other media businesses. The problem is that payment isn't really a solved problem on the internet, I can't buy a single video for say, 1€, as I would for a single baguette. So, the incentive is to bundle everything into a subscription indiscriminately. At least the deal is better for content producers than it is for music subscription services. It feels like much of the web is being held back by the lack of true innovation in the financial sector, that are really happy to take a cut from every subscription and thus have no real incentive to provide micro transactions that could support another type of economy for the web.