Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by VLM 4341 days ago
"Google could have, and still could block my gmail"

They have a different revenue generation business model for gmail.

My son's account was blocked, couldn't figure out why, and they wouldn't say. I suspect some kind of data mining thing where watching more than 5000 blitzwinger videos on youtube "proves" you're a kid or a teen. He does like his video games...

He falls into that gap between being old enough to have an account per google's rules, but young enough to not have his own credit card or a drivers license (they'd accept a scanned copy of his DL, but he's not 16 yet) so the only option to reinstate his account was to get Dad (me) to charge 50 cents on his CC to "prove" he's of legal age.

So part of the gmail business model is to hold kids (teens) accounts hostage with a threat of permanent deletion until Dad pays 50 cents. I'm not annoyed at the 50 cents, gmail is worth a large multiple of that. I am annoyed that at a random time long after BAU was initiated, they felt like charging us for fun.

It is possible the gmail biz model of randomly applied fees could be applied to play store / wallet accounts.

Not sure if OP would have flown off into as much of a rage for a $50 reinstatement fee, or if he'd be like me, pissed off at the "business agreement" being unilaterally rewritten at a later date. Either way, the gmail biz model does appear to be superior to the play/wallet/app store biz model, at least GOOG would get some revenue, however little.

I assume based on evidence Google dropped the "don't be evil" motto a long time ago.

3 comments

Do you really think Gmail's business email is collecting arbitrary one-time fees of 50 cents on minors' accounts? Is this really any more than a rounding error compared to advertising revenue, charging for extra space, and providing email services to companies and schools? The whole $0.50 thing may be a scummy tactic, but it really doesn't seem to be their business model.
Perhaps my choice of phrase "business model" was inaccurate, but the core message stands, that in summary one part of google operates under the "any problem can be fixed with a credit card" outlook on crime and punishment, and another part of google operates under a brutal inhumane lifetime banhammer model, a capital punishment with no trial or appeal judicial model. Its an interesting inconsistency.
I know lots of people don't know how to setup an email server. But gmail, as an email account, is worth less than $10/month. And, in fact, your ISP probably includes several email accounts with your internet service. If your child needs an email account, just assign him one...

If you have Verizon, here's how... [8 extra] http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpee...

If you have Comcast, here's how... [5 extra] http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/adding...

If you have Cablevision, here's how... [4 extra] http://optimum.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1673/~/c...

So, in point of fact, gmail - as a 'free' email service - is actually a huge additional COST, considering the payment in privacy. And this is why I do not use it myself...

I advice against using your ISP's email service. What happens with your email address when you switch providers? Are you going to mail all your contacts with your new email address and update it at every service you ever registered for?
I agree, if the email account is going to be used for long term purposes. However, an email account for someone at the high school level should be fine. Presumably, the kid is going to go to a college somewhere - and will use the college account until such time as the kid graduates and moves on into the 'real' world -- whatever that means. I'm just trying to say that a gmail account for a kid isn't a necessary burden that needs rescuing at even the meager upfront cost of $0.50... plus the massive cost in lost privacy - which is an ongoing fee into the indeterminable future...
This is terrible advice. Why tie yourself to your ISP like that? What if you want to switch ISPs, or need to switch ISPs?
No offense meant - but why tie yourself to a huge multinational corporate entity that sells your privacy to whomever, whenever, and forever - so that you, the user, can have email or know where the next coffee shop might be... The cost of using Google's services is not nothing. And while some here may be aware of that, and accept that - the generalized user is not fully aware - even if told...

There are several reasons not to use Google's services, but there are even more reasons not to sign up a minor for Google's services. It's useful to look at the issue from Google's point of view... Google's terms of services are meant to be taken seriously - they track you, and tell you they track you. If a parent signs up a child for these services, the parent is giving Google the right to track that child - if the services are tied to a mobile platform - the parent is giving Google the right to track the location of that child --- and Google has every right to assume that the child is not a child, but an adult, as that's in the terms of services --- thus, a parent signing a minor child up for Google services is giving away the child's anonymity and privacy, for pretty much forever --- that's a pretty big decision, and I would want my children to make that decision for themselves after trying to understand the long-term consequences.

Yeah, those are all legitimate problems with Gmail, and valid reasons to switch... but not to your ISP's email system, which (for most people) has the same problems and is probably much worse.
This is ludicrous. Do you have any evidence to back up any of this?
A complicated question to answer.

First of all you have a technical win because I screwed up, this was months ago, and its thirty cents not fifty cents.

On the other hand, if you won't google for "gmail locked out of account 30 cents" yielding "About 676,000 results (0.96 seconds)" although only the first hundred or so results are relevant, there's nothing I can do to help you or convince you.

It's all from 3 years ago and they all say it was a defect in the age calculation. That doesn't sound, as you state, like a deliberate system to generate revenue.