[hn_decay]

"But, see, the trouble here is that these users aren't customers. They're product sold to advertisers."

The whole product/customer thing is a boring bit of sophistry usually used to slander Google.

Google's profitability secret is a very high revenue to employee ratio. When I bought a $600 Nexus One from Google and discovered a problem with fulfilment, the grand total of support Google supplied to me was an automated email response (that itself was a dead end -- no recourse or escalation), and a link to an FAQ.

That's just how Google operates. If they can make a cron job that eliminates the need to supply support for most customers, that's what they do. It is this way whether they benefit from you via your eyeballs, or from your wallet.

[danilocampos]

> That's just how Google operates. If they can make a cron job that eliminates the need to supply support for most customers, that's what they do.

You begin with what seems like disagreement, then prove my point.

A $600 device to be exposed to Google's mobile ads? Here's an email.

A few million dollars a year in ad spend? Here's a whole department of new friends.

Solving problems with AdWords can be done algorithmically. And is – there are lots of little automated touches there, from ad approval to keyword suggestion. But smart humans can give more – resulting in better financial performance for Google.

Code can rarely resolve support issues. But that's all they bothered to do because end users are not a priority. For all the reasons I mentioned.

When it benefits them financially, Google offers support. Otherwise, they don't. You can chalk this up to whatever cultural or business case you'd like.

But the end result is that unless you're pouring money into their pockets, you, as an individual, don't matter to Google. That's not sophistry – that's established fact.

[palish]

You forgot "And that's an immoral way to operate. As individuals, we should try very hard to discourage that mentality. But that's the way the world operates at this time."

Personally, I've given up hope that the world will ever be different. But if there is any hope, it will take the form of: "We will no longer tolerate your impersonal policies and rationalizations". So we should try to speak out against it.

But yeah. People are irrational cows that throw money at anything shiny. So that won't happen, and the world won't change.

Moo.

[icebraining]

The problem is, if Google had to provide real support, would they be able to offer stuff for free¹? Because if not, the alternative is shutting down these services, which is bad for those of us who bother to backup their emails and have their own domains.

Personally, I feel this is a simple matter of personal responsibility. It's free, so you can't expect support. If you're not okay with that, pay someone and ask them for guarantees.

¹ Yes, I know there are other costs, but I don't think their value to Google covers anything similar to real support.

[hn_decay]

So if we discard the polarizing language about customers and products, we get to your point being that the more profitable you are as a customer, the more attention you get?

I don't think that is terribly challenging viewpoint.

[danilocampos]

Perhaps. But the vast disparity between the class of user that an advertiser is versus, well, everyone else, makes the original language both apt and more economical.

There are infinite degrees of nuance everywhere you look. We use language to reduce that complexity. You can call it sophistry as much as you like — the reason it's polarizing is because the reality sucks for 99% of people who need Google's help — they're not treated as customers as most people understand that term. Inconvenient but true.

[ThomPete]

I fail to see how you are addressing the argument made in the previous post.

Google is giving you a service for free because they are selling data about you for money.

In other words if you aren't paying for the product you are the product.

How does that have anything to do with sophistry?

[hn_decay]

Sophistry : "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."

Google makes money because they have users, in the same way that a television network makes money because they have viewers. Both are entirely reliant upon their user base, and will desperately trying to optimize and maximize that user base.

If the GP's point was "there is a very low profit / user, and a limited impact by irate customers (at least those who don't shout from the rooftops)" then they are making an accurate statement, and it's actually what I supported -- Google doesn't care whether you're on a "free" or pay program, they'll still try to avoid talking to you.

The bit about products and customers is just completely unnecessary, again, sophistry. Google's product is a mail system and a search engine and a social product, and sometimes users pay for it (I use Apps for Domains), and sometimes advertisers pay for it. Cutifying that into comforting slogans isn't helpful.

[ThomPete]

The majority of googles revenue comes from exactly the fact that they can sell targeted advertising.

Neglecting that is what is unnecessary.

[Andrew_Quentin]

But they sell it to advertisers and the advertisee. They both are the customers of google.

Frankly, I think the problem is that google has no real competition. Google, really is becoming a fine example of why monopoly, regardless of whether it is merit based or otherwise, is bad, for in the end, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.