>I think the "free" model enables providers to shrug and go "hey you don't pay us" (if there is support at all -- I've never been able to speak to a human about this issue)
I also have paid services a lot of money where customer service was nonexistent until I did a credit card chargeback or raised an issue with government regulators.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what I want to push my state legislature to encode into law with regards to customer service minimums that would cover anyone doing business in the state, free or paid.
I'm in the camp that paying makes you a customer. Inversely using a free service makes you a user, not a customer.
And as you correctly note, there I'd no "user service" department.
You can of course push for any law you like, but I expect laws protecting "users" to be toothless. Basically the TOS will boil down to "we can do anything we like" - which I guess is more or less what they say now.
I find it helpful to think of users as distinct from customers because it let's you understand the provider company motivations.
For example, Google's customer's are advertisers. Hence they cull services not conducive to advertising.
Most startups see VCs as the customer. Their business model is to sell shares to VCs in round after round. Seen in that light their attitude to users is rational and users only exist as props to VC sales.
VCs (and founders) are chasing an exit, which is usually acquisition or aquihire. Your use of the service will thus rarely survive the exit.
These are not things to be outraged about. They are all completely rational and predictable outcomes. When you use a service, these are factors you should evaluate.
> I'm in the camp that paying makes you a customer. Inversely using a free service makes you a user, not a customer.
I agree, but what do you do when a large player like Google kills the competition by making their service available for free? I used to pay for email hosting with good customer support. That company went out of business when free GMail wrecked their business model. I moved to another hosting service, which almost immediately went out of business for the same reason.
Something similar happened with YouTube. It's chock full of ads and/or subscriptions now because they subsidized it long enough to ensure competitors couldn't gain a foothold.
Thats not exactly a new question. Netscape would also like an answer.
Obviously the short answer, for you personally, is "nothing". You cannot affect either the closing business or Google.
The somewhat longer answer is that there are certainly other mail services that currently exist. So there are still options. And yes, those services will need to differentiate their offering.
[Some will no doubt mention the option to self-host. I did that myself for about 15 years. It's a lot of extra work to do that though.]
Obviously some services (like YouTube) are double-sided. Consumers go there because producers are there and vice versa. But, as you point out, even there you have choices - free with ads, or subscription. (Not that you'll get any "customer support" from Google.)
your paid email address would now always end up in people's spam folder by default, because the big 2 don't trust any email not originating from the big 2
I also have paid services a lot of money where customer service was nonexistent until I did a credit card chargeback or raised an issue with government regulators.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what I want to push my state legislature to encode into law with regards to customer service minimums that would cover anyone doing business in the state, free or paid.