Posted by zenincognito 3 days ago
I gotta say, though, that my experience with trying to get them to sort out any kind of issue with their services makes me reluctant to spend any money with them.
I bought a Pixel phone. As per the sales terms, the phone came with one year of Gemini AI Pro service. Except, the redemption process to get the year of service didn't work for me. I contacted Google, they never fixed it or offered any solution. I simply didn't get the year of service I was promised.
My friend, who bought a Pixel around the same time, also wasn't able to get the year of Gemini they were promised.
That same friend has a Google One subscription, billed through their phone carrier. Recently, Google (or the provider?) discontinued that specific Google One plan, as well as the option to bill via your carrier. This was all covered in an email sent to my friend. As consolation, the email explained, my friend was given the option to switch to a different plan, billed monthly by Google (instead of their phone carrier), with 6 months free. Except, the new plan, and the 6 months free, wasn't selectable as a plan type for their account. So my friend emails Google about it and, to my complete lack of surprise, Google was unwilling/unable to provide any resolution.
At this point, I legitimately don't understand why, unless I had no other option, I would pick Google for services. They clearly put no real effort into resolving any service issues for any customer that's not spending millions with them.
I think their motto of "don't be evil" was some pretty clever PR.
I started questioning it c. 2008 when they ghosted me on resolving an issue with my blogspot site that was a bug in the platform. All I could get was a condescending non-response from a "diamond" volunteer on a forum. They were apparently the gatekeepers to reaching actual support.
Back in the day they bought Feedburner, and merged it with their internal equivalent. In that process, my subscriber list was affected. They apologized and even sent out some swag. That was nice, for a small inconvenience at the time.
Today? humans don't even seem to be involved.
If they didn't have all their issues (discontinuing products, bad customer service) they'd probably be bigger than MS and Apple combined. But here we are.
Also for better or worse, I pay for bundled Google storage + Gemini and YouTube separately, it's still worth it, even without free months or whatever. And still better than being in MS or Apple's ecosystem.
Until you go of the rails of their processes and have your account closed with no recourse.
That doesn't make any sense. There are still plenty of people who are not doing weird things and getting screwed over.
Google fanboys have always fallen for their "don't be evil" nonsense, and it looks like they still are even after it was changed.
When you pay for Google Workspace you are the client, not the customer and they do answer phone calls for support. The only two times my wife and I needed them for our SMEs, they picked up the phone and helped us resolve our issues. Super professional too. Haven't needed to give them a call in something like 8 years now.
Don't know about Pixel phone and Google One subscriptions but for SMEs Google Workspace is a godsend: it's incredibly cheap per employee and it's the way out of the Microsoft mediocrity. Everything only requires a browser, no matter the OS (wife works from Linux and now added a Mac Mini, for example): Windows can, at long last, get the middle finger in SMEs.
I'll forever be thankful to Google for allowing me to help many people get rid of Microsoft products, including Windows.
I admit once it didn't work I didn't reach out to support but the entire experience was shit sandwich after shit sandwich.
It's been a decade since Google broke their promise not to use information gleaned from your use of their services to sell ads.
> Google quietly erased that last privacy line in the sand — literally crossing out the lines in its privacy policy that promised to keep the two pots of data separate by default. In its place, Google substituted new language that says browsing habits “may be” combined with what the company learns from the use Gmail and other tools.
"Support" agents couldn't be bothered - this feels like AI trapping me in the tarpit maze to save a few USD on the disk storage and infefence cost, effectively scamming me.
I fixed this by deleting the subscription data for Google One (which also refunded me a prorated amount for my Google One plan), and then waiting a day.
Contract violation. The problem is it's simply too burdensome to go to small claims court.
People really fail to unionize when they can just piss in the wind.
Everyone who depends on the good graces of a cloud provider for something (not just Google, but Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, whatever) needs to at the very least, take a moment, and figure out what their plan is when they are suddenly banned and locked out permanently, without any way to contact the company.
Does life just go on, since you don't have anything important hosted there? (Best Case)
Do you lose some precious family photos and use it as a tough learning opportunity to stop doing what you're doing? (Next best)
Do you lose access to your E-mail and are suddenly not able to do 2FA, reset passwords, communicate with the company or the Internet in any way, and so on, and now have to panic?
Do you complain online, hoping that someone in the company sees your post and has the ability to restore your account, which you then continue to use because you learned nothing?
Having an online account suddenly suspended is a real, non-zero, but unlikely risk. You should at least have a disaster plan if you rely on these things for anything important. Or better yet, stop relying on them for important things like your identity or precious files!
We really need to just fix the laws.
This. There are something like 150 million Americans with a Google account, and these days it is more important than a phone number to have a working email.
Email is a utility. Email companies should be heavily regulated and controlled like phone or other utility companies.
Someone claiming to work for the US Digital Services replied to me here years ago that this was being worked on in relation to the easily compromised SSN but I'd say all bets are off on a consumer friendly government service like that now.
The only people who seem to get un-suspended are the ones who can generate news media outrage or who can call their friend who is a director/exec at the company. (Obviously this intuition is flawed, but it’s hurting the reputations of these SaaS providers.)
It's not hurting them enough. Hence the regulation is needed.
This is one of the most common sentiments I hear expressed on HN, next only to "if you're not building your software business around Claude Code, you're gonna left behind".
It can be surprisingly difficult with a lot of SaaS products (including Google).
"I'm sure it's very sad that you've lost all your [email|calendar|photos|whatever]... but, were you, a person who has chosen to rely on a service provided by a cloud provider with a track record which goes back well over 15 years of locking people out of their accounts with no recourse for the user, not aware that said provider has a track record of doing so, in some cases without even giving an explanation why?
Were you not aware that the service you were relying on them for was critically important to you? Or were you unaware that the provider of this service has the capability to completely disable the service you're relying on with the simple flip of a switch?
I'm fascinated by this decision you've made - could you please explain the thought process by which you chose to use this service which you have no control over for critical things?"
Most people expect better because in most other walks of life it is better with some kind of plausible appeal route, and the deficiencies we're discussing don't really get publicized. These service-outcomes are the outliers in need of repair, not the consumers.
> are those *really* the rhetorical questions you'd fling at your Aunt Tillie panicking on the phone, because she can't email anybody or renew her important drug
But I'm not actually really talking about regular people losing their personal email where they happen to keep a few sort-of important things that are relatively-easily replaced/transferred into a safer system. Those people I can sort-of understand, and don't really need to ask my questions - the answer is simple: "I never thought about it until now".
But aunt Tillie doesn't call herself an "entrepreneur" and doesn't rely on the existence of her gmail account for the survival of a business, and she especially doesn't have a blog where she whinges about the fact she did that.
I'm talking about people who should know better, who should be smart and considering things like "what are the existential threats to this business I'm trying to run?", who use gmail for vital business functions like payroll, and who tie their auth for everything else to their google (or whatever other shitty cloud service) accounts.
> the deficiencies we're discussing don't really get publicized
And another thing: my questions are not rhetorical. I am genuinely curious about the thought process that leads to these decisions. See, I didn't actually have to see this article even once - what I did was I gave it about 10 seconds thought, and came to the conclusion that relying on unaccountable third parties for mission-critical business infrastructure is an existential risk. This all seems very obvious and straightforward to me. Perhaps I'm some kind of super genius? I'm doubtful about that.
> These service-outcomes are the outliers in need of repair, not the consumers.
But if you're not giving any thought to who controls your vital data and you lose it as a result of that, that's at least 50% your fault.
As an ex-googler, the only reason I was comfortable keeping even my personal email there was because I could reach out internally if there was a problem. I left Google, and left gmail behind too.
So one of the comments on one hackernews post on front-page almost somehow always refer to something within a hackernews post on the same front-page. I have seen this witnessed too many times that it might be time to name this phenomenon.
Tailscale is the only serious company that I can ever recall offering /only/ third party login. It's bit bizarre on the face of it. Anyone know the reason?
What a shit tier authentication mechanism.
"Sign-in methods: Email, passkey, Google account, Apple account, GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket".
This has the nefarious side effect of allowing Google or Facebook to track people across the Internet and apps. Webmasters like you are, often for no imperative reason, complicit of this by providing such login options.
App developers have repeatedly stated that offering those options increases user account creation. There is lower friction to using “login with <big tech>” than to create username/password creation flow. My guess is that most of the world hasn’t figured out a password manager workflow that works for them (or they aren’t willing to pay for it).
I don’t know what the exact revenue/growth difference is, but if my paycheque depended upon getting more users to sign up, I don’t think I could justify making it into a political stance when Google isn’t going to notice my tiny boycott.
Nothing has helped, the Google forums are tumbleweed and there's no one to reach out to for what could be an algorithm change or something gone wrong. I'm a paying Workspace customer and it's made me think I need a backup plan in case I'm ever suspended. Reports like this don't encourage.
The own-brand forum (Google, Microsoft, Apple) seem to be infested by netizens from lower-income countries trying to build online customer support portfolios by providing utterly useless answers.
That, or trying to game the system and getting shortlisted for a free trip to Google HQ for one of their contributor summits.
I’d be at a complete loss for any obscure Windows issue though.
Not only did they answer immediately whenever I had even the smallest problem or question: I twice broke my Glass, and each time I'd call the support number to ask for a replacement.
Google's policy was that no matter how you broke it or how many times it happened, they'd replace it free. They'd immediately send a box to return the broken device (prepaid) and a couple days later a brand new Glass would arrive.
Like I said, once upon a time....
I think organizations have a very hard time staying motivated once the product’s concern has moved away from any one team. While you test the product for them there’s likely people whose jobs depended on you and 7999 others doing so. But eventually a product will be considered shipped and all the various talent now pays attention to what’s next.
It's not the same league, not even the same sport.
PS: Not defending Google here, their support for some products is abysmal
However (and I loathe this logic) if you can get the marketplace to accept that minimal level, and the brand harm is inconsequential, why not pocket the savings
That's the thing though. Google have destroyed their brand through these kinds of actions, over many years.
Yes, because they were using you to figure out where it needed improvements for every day wear and tear. It wasn't charitable, it was R&D expense.
With this comment in mind, I just now called that same number with an instant pickup telling me they no longer take support calls at that number.
I saw it mentioned in a comment elsewhere in this thread, but the level of service you get really seems dependant on which pocket of Google is responsible for the product you happen to be using. Unfortunately Workspace is a giant pocket with many billions of users with suboptimal and/or perpetually exhausted support.
Notice how phone carries manage to have a shop in every little strip mall, you're never more than a few miles from the nearest one. Google takes in far more revenue, can easily afford the same. Or they could even just partner with the phone carriers and have a staffed desk in every tmobile/at&t/verizon shop.
No company will give full account unlock control to field employees.
Even the bank teller behind the glass needs to phone their internal fraud dept to unlock accounts.
That's not how it works at banks nor phone vendors.
(Although, even being able to open a ticket would be 100% better than the black hole of nothingness that is google support.)
When you go to a bank with access issues (something I've done somewhat regularly because I manage accounts for various family members who no longer can) you meet with someone who can authenticate you, and that employee has direct access to talk to their risk and fraud departments so they can sort out any issues while you're sitting there next to them.
There needs to be a law that any cloud service with a non-trivial userbase must have a similarly staffed support center reasonably accessible to all citizens.
Not with Google, I've had a ticket open for five months counting.
Except the bank teller has already authenticated you and internal fraud will pick up the phone...
But the EU’s approach is often backwards. When product managers have to ask the government if it’s ok to ship a feature, something is wrong. When the government responds that it can’t say in advance, you’ll just have to ship and see if you get fined, something is really seriously broken.
Same with social media features that are rolled out to millions of users.
But, if you'll re-read my comment, my complaint is that the EU will not pre-clear features. They will only punish after the fact if they decide it was a bad feature.
And that's even assuming you're correct that the bureaucrats themselves know what is a good idea. Which I'm skeptical of. I think they're more likely to be correct than, say, Facebook... but that's a pretty low bar.
“Exerting” would be more correct I guess but less fun.
It feels like the security team made this change to reduce account hijacking but it's at complete odds with the recovery flow and modern security practices. Better hope your phone number doesn't get hijacked or recycled because it's the key to your account now, security keys be damned.
I've tried everything to find someone inside Google to fix this, but so far no luck. At least with Meta you can find someone on a forum like Swapd who will take a small bribe to fix these issues.
We have everything else but this alone is not enough.
The other option is to contact the phone company and explain, asking an open ended question if there is any way they could help you, with the permission of the current owner of the number, to get one more text message and move your Gmail to a new number. It doesn't sound in any way like you are trying to pull a scam, so they might help.
I also tried to get blackhat and tried to find anyone who can intercept the text, but I've not been able to, even on some rather shady forums...
That sounds like its own kind of problems. (!)
I had this happen a couple years ago when I was migrating to a different domain. The only difference was all of the authentication that I supplied Google said was an adequate and I got into some sort of a login loop where Authenticator, SMS, DNS record nor pass key would provide enough authentication for me to get in.
I got the automated got bought to finally send me the mythical form, after completing that I was told that they were unable to authenticate me further. I ended up emailing their support multiple times and threatening lawsuits multiple times when I got a magic call from a human at Google. They also sent me the link that put me into a login loop however after chatting with them for nearly an hour I got a different magic login link form which appeared to work.
On the plus side, it does mean they have thousands of people who know how to fix problems.
If we're comparing cloud services, surely GCP has customer service? I can't imagine any big enterprise using it otherwise.
It would be cool if Google (and other media giants, especially IdP ones) had an office where you could bring your passport and verify it's you. I don't think there is.
The Americans have done something kind of interesting along those lines, as far as an in-person IDV option to establish e-government accounts [0]. You start account setup online, then take a barcode to a post office along with your identity documents.
I have to imagine it’s hard to make a commercial case for such a system, though… especially these days with so much momentum toward the approach I resent—that is, requiring ID checks just to be online in the first place.
[0] https://www.login.gov/help/verify-your-identity/verify-your-...
Honestly, if you are using Gmail as your primary email I could probably ruin your entire year. I could just try and hack you (not even successfully) and Google will just shut down your entire life rather than attempt to work out who's right.
Had this happen to me. Fortunately the 'attacker' wasn't actually trying to do this, so damage was limited, but it's chilling when you think about what some motivated script kiddy can do with your Google account just by requesting password resets.