[mati]

He is not google's customer.

[WalterGR]

We're all Google's customers. The majority of us just don't write them a check.

[po]

Most of us are not Google's customers. We are the raw materials google uses to fabricate a product to sell.

[ori_b]

No, we're google's products. The advertisers are their customers.

[WalterGR]

Are you a "customer" if you exchange something of value for a service?

I think you are. By this definition, I am a customer of Google, as is anyone in this thread who uses a Google service.

But I am not the final arbiter of meaning. The downvotes to my comment show that I am clearly wrong on this subject.

[po]

I don't think you're wrong per-se… I think that's one way of looking at it and is the way preferred by most people. It's nice to be a customer. You have power and control.

In this case, I would argue that you're bartering your attention for a service. To me the word customer implies an exchange of money - almost by definition. As I mentioned in my raw materials comment, Google turns around and sells your attention to advertisers: their real customers. They need you, but not in the same way they need their customers.

I voted your comment back to 1. I don't agree with your viewpoint, but I don't think it's a wrong viewpoint.

[ori_b]

Well, by that definition, Google can also be considered your customer. Or any vendor can also be considered their customer's customer.

[WalterGR]

I don't think I understand what you mean... Do you mean swapping the roles via inverting the sense of "giver of something of value" and "provider of service"? As in:

"I provide Google the service of access to my personal data, and they give me use of Gmail as a payment, therefore Google is my customer."

"I provide my vendor the service of access to currency, and they give me a product as a payment, therefore my vendor is my customer."

That seems like a stretch, so I must be missing something.

[ori_b]

No, I'm just saying that it's a very vague way of defining a customer/vendor.