6 ms·

> Internet giants, you’re no longer startups, get some customer service That's like demanding that a slaughterhouse provides customer service for cows. You're

by _pmf_ 13y ago

> Internet giants, you’re no longer startups, get some customer service That's like demanding that a slaughterhouse provides customer service for cows. You're not the customer, you are a peasant. Google's business is not providing infrastructure, it's aggregating and selling information, no matter what outwards appearance they like to give themselves.

ArekDymalski 13y ago
Actually the post mentions the business customers (for Adsense) not individual consumers - users, who (as you've brilliantly illustrated) are in fact just a part of Google's product.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
a1a 13y ago
Not really. One might say that you cannot demand "free services" to provide customer service, but I would not consider Google's services as "free". This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency. There are a lot of Google services where customer service is indeed relevant, for example Gmail, Google+, Google docs, etc. For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well.
- kevination 13y ago
  > This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency. That doesn't seem accurate. You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements. Your personal information helps target those ads.
  - kanzure 13y ago
    > You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements No, many of us are literally paying. You know, with dollars. For (really tiny amounts of) storage space. And other things.
    - kevination 13y ago
      That makes sense. Paying with personal information was the statement that I was responding to. The personal information is worthless without the exposure to advertisements.
      - a1a 13y ago
        We clearly have different views. I believe that a transaction of value (i.e. a payment) is not limited to money, it does include indirect values as well. I.e. if I send my personal data to a advertising corporation - that is a transaction of an indirect value. The direct value of that transaction is of course when receiving money from the one buying the advertisement which is exposed to me. Yet without my personal information, they could possible not have sold it for as much.
        kevination 13y ago
        I agree that one can pay for something without exchanging money. What I took issue with was your emphasis on paying with personal information, while not mentioning that the personal information was being used in service of the advertisement exposures. As far as I know, the reason they want my information is to make the actual revenue-generating thing work better. The advertisements would still make Google (far less, but still significant) money without my personal information. My personal information presumably wouldn't generate much significant revenue at all were it not being used in service of advertisements. That's why it seemed odd to me to say that I'm paying with my personal information, and not mention advertising exposures. Perhaps I'm quibbling though! Anyway, I'm starting to feel like a modern jackass[1]; sorry if this wasn't very clear. 1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jackass http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jack...
- powermeat 13y ago
  > For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well. Or else what? To what benefit? Do they need to step up or would you just prefer if they provided customer service?
  - a1a 13y ago
    Oh sorry! English is not my native language, I did not realize "need to step up" was considered such a strong expression. I stand corrected: Not just Google, I would prefer if many other corporations were able to provide customer service as well, please.
- kbenson 13y ago
  Whether the service is free or not has nothing to do with the amount of support they provide. If they charged $0.01 per year, would that then change any argument in any way? What about $0.01 for life? Google is monetizing the interaction in some way, either directly or indirectly (possibly even as a loss leader), otherwise they would not offer it. That is all that matters. Once we can all get past the "free" concept, it turns into a rather mundane comparisons of price vs features, but price may not entirely consist of currency.
  - a1a 13y ago
    I agree. The point of my above statement was that one might argue that it's not reasonable to for example call Linus Torvalds and demand customer service for free.
freehunter 13y ago
Except cows don't pay the slaughterhouse like I pay Google.
- rfnslyr 13y ago
  They pay with their flesh.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    Well I pay with money, so...
    - josh2600 13y ago
      Shylock might quibble about semantics.
      - freehunter 13y ago
        Shylock might, but I don't. I actively give them money, there's no extra work on their end to monetize me. Giving them information means they need to monetize that information by selling it. I'm offering liquidity (cash). Tech support doesn't seem like too much to ask. A pound of flesh is not liquid (actually, it's punitive on Antonio).
        josh2600 13y ago
        I've been reading Jaron Lanier's new Book: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Future-Jaron-Lanier/dp/1451654960/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368465041&sr=8-1&keywords=who+owns+the+future http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Future-Jaron-Lanier/dp/145165... Definitely worth a read for its input on this subject. So, with respect to the idea of cash, I agree that Google should provide service, but from their perspective that would break their margins on this product.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
soup10 13y ago
That's some pretty extreme language. Google has never cut me open and turned me into steaks and sausages. Google has never indicated that i'm somehow lower status than it. Google in fact seems to treat everyone but a few large enterprise customers equally indifferently. Google is in the search business, I believe 90+% of revenue comes from adwords and adsense, not selling user information to intelligence agencies, as your hyperbole would suggest. Of course we all know all that, so I'm assuming you've had some kind of account issue with them in the past.
- jerf 13y ago
  "I believe 90+% of revenue comes from adwords and adsense, not selling user information to intelligence agencies,..." Err... what exactly do you think AdWords and AdSense are? Think about what it means to target ads... they advertisers are not paying to know what browser you're using. They're paying to get their ads targeted on whatever Google knows about you. Even if the knowledge doesn't transfer directly, the advertisers don't really care, they've got what they want.
  - rtkwe 13y ago
    They don't sell the information though, they sell placement.
  - hkmurakami 13y ago
    What about the other side of the adsense equation: site owners placing Google ads who sometimes get hosed off the service with little room for recourse or support?
- wpietri 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
film42 13y ago
Disagree. Here's a current problem I'm working on. I subscribed to some app service on the internet for $1.99/m through google wallet. After a month, I cancelled the subscription via my google wallet subscriptions. To my surprise, the next month I received another $1.99 charge. So I cancelled it, and sent a message to the app maker through Google Wallet -- no reply. The next month, another charge. I cancelled it, this time, went looking on the app makers website, found an unsubscribe form, thought, "ahh, here we go," never heard from them. Next month, $1.99 charge. I cancel it and after 5 minutes of intense clicking, find a number to google wallet customer service!!! I called, explained my situation, reconfirmed my credit cards, addresses, email, name, etc, to be told to fill out a form, wait 3-5 business days to receive an email from someone that should be able to fix my problems. At this point I feel an email won't help me, so I ask, "Are you sure there isn't a phone number? I would really like to get this resolved today" politely. I was then informed that the specialists are not yet reachable by phone. So, I'm waiting now for a reply from a specialist who will hopefully solve my problem. Imagine you're at the store register with your kids and your credit card is declined wrongly. Embarrassed, you leave your cart, call the bank, explain your situation, and they say, "We're sorry to hear that, we are emailing you a form, please fill it out. You can expect a reply via email in 3-5 business days from someone who might help." That simply wouldn't be acceptable. I believe that you want to change the world, Google, but sometimes you need to focus more resources on the world you've already changed.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  > That simply wouldn't be acceptable. Indeed, and a reasonable person would take their business elsewhere instead of attempting to impose their opinion on banks by force (aka law). If you don't think Google offers a fair deal, you should stop using their services. I'm not seeing how this is a problem.
- yardie 13y ago
  I had a similar problem with an app service and Google Wallet. I didn't get the satisfaction I wanted from the service nor Google Wallet. So I cancelled the both of them. I expect limited customer service for a free service; I expect something entirely different for paid service. Even more so when it is a recurring charge, whether $2 or $50/mo I've basically opened my bank account to you so respect it.

by _pmf_ 13y ago

ArekDymalski 13y ago

Actually the post mentions the business customers (for Adsense) not individual consumers - users, who (as you've brilliantly illustrated) are in fact just a part of Google's product.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

a1a 13y ago

Not really. One might say that you cannot demand "free services" to provide customer service, but I would not consider Google's services as "free". This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency. There are a lot of Google services where customer service is indeed relevant, for example Gmail, Google+, Google docs, etc. For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well.

kevination 13y ago
> This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency. That doesn't seem accurate. You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements. Your personal information helps target those ads.
- kanzure 13y ago
  > You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements No, many of us are literally paying. You know, with dollars. For (really tiny amounts of) storage space. And other things.
  - kevination 13y ago
    That makes sense. Paying with personal information was the statement that I was responding to. The personal information is worthless without the exposure to advertisements.
    - a1a 13y ago
      We clearly have different views. I believe that a transaction of value (i.e. a payment) is not limited to money, it does include indirect values as well. I.e. if I send my personal data to a advertising corporation - that is a transaction of an indirect value. The direct value of that transaction is of course when receiving money from the one buying the advertisement which is exposed to me. Yet without my personal information, they could possible not have sold it for as much.
      - kevination 13y ago
        I agree that one can pay for something without exchanging money. What I took issue with was your emphasis on paying with personal information, while not mentioning that the personal information was being used in service of the advertisement exposures. As far as I know, the reason they want my information is to make the actual revenue-generating thing work better. The advertisements would still make Google (far less, but still significant) money without my personal information. My personal information presumably wouldn't generate much significant revenue at all were it not being used in service of advertisements. That's why it seemed odd to me to say that I'm paying with my personal information, and not mention advertising exposures. Perhaps I'm quibbling though! Anyway, I'm starting to feel like a modern jackass[1]; sorry if this wasn't very clear. 1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jackass http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jack...
powermeat 13y ago
> For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well. Or else what? To what benefit? Do they need to step up or would you just prefer if they provided customer service?
- a1a 13y ago
  Oh sorry! English is not my native language, I did not realize "need to step up" was considered such a strong expression. I stand corrected: Not just Google, I would prefer if many other corporations were able to provide customer service as well, please.
kbenson 13y ago
Whether the service is free or not has nothing to do with the amount of support they provide. If they charged $0.01 per year, would that then change any argument in any way? What about $0.01 for life? Google is monetizing the interaction in some way, either directly or indirectly (possibly even as a loss leader), otherwise they would not offer it. That is all that matters. Once we can all get past the "free" concept, it turns into a rather mundane comparisons of price vs features, but price may not entirely consist of currency.
- a1a 13y ago
  I agree. The point of my above statement was that one might argue that it's not reasonable to for example call Linus Torvalds and demand customer service for free.

freehunter 13y ago

Except cows don't pay the slaughterhouse like I pay Google.

rfnslyr 13y ago
They pay with their flesh.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Well I pay with money, so...
  - josh2600 13y ago
    Shylock might quibble about semantics.
    - freehunter 13y ago
      Shylock might, but I don't. I actively give them money, there's no extra work on their end to monetize me. Giving them information means they need to monetize that information by selling it. I'm offering liquidity (cash). Tech support doesn't seem like too much to ask. A pound of flesh is not liquid (actually, it's punitive on Antonio).
      - josh2600 13y ago
        I've been reading Jaron Lanier's new Book: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Future-Jaron-Lanier/dp/1451654960/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368465041&sr=8-1&keywords=who+owns+the+future http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Future-Jaron-Lanier/dp/145165... Definitely worth a read for its input on this subject. So, with respect to the idea of cash, I agree that Google should provide service, but from their perspective that would break their margins on this product.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

soup10 13y ago

That's some pretty extreme language. Google has never cut me open and turned me into steaks and sausages. Google has never indicated that i'm somehow lower status than it. Google in fact seems to treat everyone but a few large enterprise customers equally indifferently. Google is in the search business, I believe 90+% of revenue comes from adwords and adsense, not selling user information to intelligence agencies, as your hyperbole would suggest. Of course we all know all that, so I'm assuming you've had some kind of account issue with them in the past.

jerf 13y ago
"I believe 90+% of revenue comes from adwords and adsense, not selling user information to intelligence agencies,..." Err... what exactly do you think AdWords and AdSense are? Think about what it means to target ads... they advertisers are not paying to know what browser you're using. They're paying to get their ads targeted on whatever Google knows about you. Even if the knowledge doesn't transfer directly, the advertisers don't really care, they've got what they want.
- rtkwe 13y ago
  They don't sell the information though, they sell placement.
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  What about the other side of the adsense equation: site owners placing Google ads who sometimes get hosed off the service with little room for recourse or support?
wpietri 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

film42 13y ago

Disagree. Here's a current problem I'm working on. I subscribed to some app service on the internet for $1.99/m through google wallet. After a month, I cancelled the subscription via my google wallet subscriptions. To my surprise, the next month I received another $1.99 charge. So I cancelled it, and sent a message to the app maker through Google Wallet -- no reply. The next month, another charge. I cancelled it, this time, went looking on the app makers website, found an unsubscribe form, thought, "ahh, here we go," never heard from them. Next month, $1.99 charge. I cancel it and after 5 minutes of intense clicking, find a number to google wallet customer service!!! I called, explained my situation, reconfirmed my credit cards, addresses, email, name, etc, to be told to fill out a form, wait 3-5 business days to receive an email from someone that should be able to fix my problems. At this point I feel an email won't help me, so I ask, "Are you sure there isn't a phone number? I would really like to get this resolved today" politely. I was then informed that the specialists are not yet reachable by phone. So, I'm waiting now for a reply from a specialist who will hopefully solve my problem. Imagine you're at the store register with your kids and your credit card is declined wrongly. Embarrassed, you leave your cart, call the bank, explain your situation, and they say, "We're sorry to hear that, we are emailing you a form, please fill it out. You can expect a reply via email in 3-5 business days from someone who might help." That simply wouldn't be acceptable. I believe that you want to change the world, Google, but sometimes you need to focus more resources on the world you've already changed.

cookiecaper 13y ago
> That simply wouldn't be acceptable. Indeed, and a reasonable person would take their business elsewhere instead of attempting to impose their opinion on banks by force (aka law). If you don't think Google offers a fair deal, you should stop using their services. I'm not seeing how this is a problem.
yardie 13y ago
I had a similar problem with an app service and Google Wallet. I didn't get the satisfaction I wanted from the service nor Google Wallet. So I cancelled the both of them. I expect limited customer service for a free service; I expect something entirely different for paid service. Even more so when it is a recurring charge, whether $2 or $50/mo I've basically opened my bank account to you so respect it.