Don't see it that way. If I set up a process once, using software that's been tested and been around for a while, it's extremely convenient. And free. And there's no risk of deplatforming.
You're completely ignoring feature parity, among many, many other things in your oversimplification...
Ask any founder here: people don't generally randomly throw money without getting value; ergo these multibillion dollar services you're pretending are entirely replaceable with free tools offer some additional value .
I'm a founder. I'm extremely careful not throwing money. And I'm especially am aware of the changing environment. The internet is no longer free. You depend on a third party, you lose. The only true way is to gradually build your own infrastructure as you grow.
That's fine, but pretending like this is an objectively superior solution and the value prop of these companies doesn't exist is flat wrong.
What if someone applied your own logic to buying your product (why pay when I can get the exact same thing from free tools)? It'd be annoying and generally wrong, wouldn't it?
I'm happy to pay. To me, however, the value lies in predictability, sustainability and avoiding the risk of deplatforming. Tech companies come and go and are subject to political issues (as proven by Github). Thus, sometimes, it's wiser to pay engineers to set things up than buy a product/service.
You're shifting the conversation though, this wasn't about what your priorities are it was about whether or not the products provide value. You claimed they don't, you are now saying they do provide value?
I never said those products don't provide value, I only said they're not exceptional in providing that value and that value can be obtained by carefully considering alternative solutions.
Ask any founder here: people don't generally randomly throw money without getting value; ergo these multibillion dollar services you're pretending are entirely replaceable with free tools offer some additional value .