Google Fails the Turing Test(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Google Fails the Turing Test
https://plus.google.com/114419328456762929144/posts/NAJbzrZwWNj
177 comments
Haha, I am most assuredly a real person, not a paid actor. My girlfriend got tired of me venting about it and actually being angry, so I turned my anger into humorous flourish.
My goal in this is to get some kind of human being at Google to respond. #googleplayed - what do you think? Could it catch on?
My goal in this is to get some kind of human being at Google to respond. #googleplayed - what do you think? Could it catch on?
How do we know you're not a robot? We're going to need you to complete this series of captchas...
I think we need a "not a microsoft employee" captcha. Uh, how about, "Bing sucks"?
I suspect that at just about any company, even the good ones, at least 20% of the workforce would swear their product sucks ;)
I see. Tell me more about "Bing Sucks"?
Hey, I don't have anything to do with the Play Store or the Nexus 4, but I just wanted to say that I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience. My hope is that Google learns from feedback like your experience so that we don't make these kinds of mistakes in the future. But I'm sorry that trying to get the Nexus 4 was so frustrating. :(
Is "Bing Sucks" a bat symbol for Google employees? ;)
Thanks Matt, I appreciate it. What's so frustrating for me is that I want Google to be the good guys. I want to be able to recommend any and all Google products to friends and family. I hold Google in high esteem, which made this interaction that much worse because it was so far from what I think Google is capable of.
I have a family member that experienced something very similar. She too was pretty upset. Sometimes this kind of ranting is the best way to lighten a very upsetting situation.
As someone who carries an Android, Google really screwed this up, and deserves all of the hammering they can get in this. They will be forgiven if the next launch goes much better than this, though.
As someone who carries an Android, Google really screwed this up, and deserves all of the hammering they can get in this. They will be forgiven if the next launch goes much better than this, though.
I am a big Google proponent, and Android user. But the problem is deeper than just a smooth launch, and the number of issues at launch.
It is a systemic customer support issue that, while perhaps understandable for a free product, is horrendous for a merchant or paid product. I don't think people would care nearly so much about launch hiccups, even major, if there was customer support to help resolve the issue. But as it is, whenever you order something it can feel a bit like Russian Roulette with Google. I hope this changes soon, because otherwise they are doing awesome stuff.
It is a systemic customer support issue that, while perhaps understandable for a free product, is horrendous for a merchant or paid product. I don't think people would care nearly so much about launch hiccups, even major, if there was customer support to help resolve the issue. But as it is, whenever you order something it can feel a bit like Russian Roulette with Google. I hope this changes soon, because otherwise they are doing awesome stuff.
d2vid just emailed me about his little google rant. d2vid is in the SF startup scene and has been helping my team at Rally.org and a few other start-ups with product and dev work. Definitely, not MSFT astro-turfing :)
Google customer support is notoriously bad. Support for their flagship products, gmail, google docs, etc is non-existent. For example, gmail filtering + email forwarding have been broken for over a year, with no fix in sight. So I'm not surprised to see that support isn't good in other area's either. It's really a shame because Google is a great company, with great products and a great vision, and it hurts to see sloppy execution.
I agree, I'm rooting for Google and would just like them to fix their customer support.
I get that they can't profitably provide any kind of support for, say, Google Groups. As we like to say around here, if you don't pay them, then you're the product and you can't expect good service. But once they start moving into markets where you pay them money, the bar is higher. In this case, I'm the customer and their support is by far the worst customer experience of my life. Worse than the time a US Airways stewardess took my carry-on bag off the plane before take-off without telling me.
I get that they can't profitably provide any kind of support for, say, Google Groups. As we like to say around here, if you don't pay them, then you're the product and you can't expect good service. But once they start moving into markets where you pay them money, the bar is higher. In this case, I'm the customer and their support is by far the worst customer experience of my life. Worse than the time a US Airways stewardess took my carry-on bag off the plane before take-off without telling me.
>Support for their flagship products, gmail, google docs, etc is non-existent
How are they flagship products? Their flagship profit maker is ads and I hear their support for advertizers is top notch.
I doubt Gmail makes enough off its ads to justify its costs, I think its value is more in getting people to sign in to Google so that if you search for something at work, ads related to it are shown at home etc.
How are they flagship products? Their flagship profit maker is ads and I hear their support for advertizers is top notch.
I doubt Gmail makes enough off its ads to justify its costs, I think its value is more in getting people to sign in to Google so that if you search for something at work, ads related to it are shown at home etc.
"gmail filtering + email forwarding have been broken for over a year"
Could you elaborate on this please?
Could you elaborate on this please?
Seconded! This is the first I've heard of problems with Gmail's filtering/forwarding.
I think it has to do with that post where someone missed out on important legal mails because gmail chose to only forward those mails that passed their spam test.
Can't you use the "never mark this as spam" option? I haven't tested that, however, so it's possible that it wouldn't work.
Yes you can and there are other tricks too. However, since its not the default behavior and given that most people don't realize it when setting up forwarding, it can be considered a bug.
This issue: http://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/gmail/ugBCu8...
Also: http://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/gmail/jCukq7...
It's pretty easy to reproduce. Create a filter for your emails, any filter at all. In the rules section, have the filter forward to a forwarding address. Now receive an email that matches the filter, and watch the forwarding not work.
Also: http://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/gmail/jCukq7...
It's pretty easy to reproduce. Create a filter for your emails, any filter at all. In the rules section, have the filter forward to a forwarding address. Now receive an email that matches the filter, and watch the forwarding not work.
You should try: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/gmail
If you click on each sub-forum, you can see from the official response icon column, on the right. That most of the threads do get an answer. That's far from non-existent. I think their big failure here, has been to poorly communicate how people can get help, most don't know about the forums.
If you click on each sub-forum, you can see from the official response icon column, on the right. That most of the threads do get an answer. That's far from non-existent. I think their big failure here, has been to poorly communicate how people can get help, most don't know about the forums.
Any company the size of google can't provide support for their free products. It's not that it's too expensive, or that it's too hard, providing support for a product like gmail is simply impossible. If they opened up a support line for gmail they would simply become overwhelmed with requests like "help, i can't find the send button" or "somebody's spamming me, cna you tell them to stop". Real actual support queries would never get through the noise.
Copy and pasting the same snippet of generic polite text is excusable, but what can possibly explain the lack of context? Surely you'd only need to glance at the past activity on the ticket (ie, your own emails that you just sent a couple days ago) to avoid giving the same stupid, useless response.
It's either a poorly-programmed robot, or a human acting very much like one.
It's either a poorly-programmed robot, or a human acting very much like one.
What is UPS's response? Seems you should talk to the carrier if it's stated that it's "on truck for delivery" and ask for their explanation?
You cannot get very detailed information about a package (tracking number) unless you are the shipper. Google would have to inquire with UPS about the tracking number.
UPS support will generally only parrot the same information you can get through tracking it on their website.
UPS support will generally only parrot the same information you can get through tracking it on their website.
This is exactly what happened - UPS said "We strongly suggest that you contact your shipper to initiate a package investigation. Shippers are encouraged to report lost packages because receivers may not have all the shipment information needed to perform a thorough investigation."
I conveyed that information to Google, and Google strung me along giving me the impression that they were doing something about it, albeit slowly.
I conveyed that information to Google, and Google strung me along giving me the impression that they were doing something about it, albeit slowly.
Oh my bad...sadly all this seems very "typical" of Google support ... something didn't go right? Visit a forum.
Ok ... 2nd idea ... charge-back the order on your credit card with the already. Claim fraud whatever...at least you'll have your money.
Ok ... 2nd idea ... charge-back the order on your credit card with the already. Claim fraud whatever...at least you'll have your money.
You're totally right, I thought about ordering a second set of phones and then initiating a chargeback if the first set didn't arrive/weren't resent.
If there had been absolutely no support from Google, that's what I would have done. But they claimed to be making progress in helping me. Fool me 32 times, shame on me.
If there had been absolutely no support from Google, that's what I would have done. But they claimed to be making progress in helping me. Fool me 32 times, shame on me.
> Ok ... 2nd idea ... charge-back the order on your credit card with the already. Claim fraud whatever...at least you'll have your money.
I don't know about you, but perspective of losing all my gmail over chargeback is very scary to me. And I'm not sure I am safe from google just pulling a switch from my email.
I don't know about you, but perspective of losing all my gmail over chargeback is very scary to me. And I'm not sure I am safe from google just pulling a switch from my email.
Are you going to keep hosting your email with a company you trust so little you actually think they would disconnect you from their free service over a chargeback on a product they actually failed to provide? I get more and more glad I'm not a prisoner to their "free" services every day.
That said, it would be ridiculous for them to do that. Wouldn't that imply that they can perceive problems and act on them--a faculty this story illustrates they are profoundly lacking?
That said, it would be ridiculous for them to do that. Wouldn't that imply that they can perceive problems and act on them--a faculty this story illustrates they are profoundly lacking?
> That said, it would be ridiculous for them to do that. Wouldn't that imply that they can perceive problems and act on them--a faculty this story illustrates they are profoundly lacking?
Why would it? That could be an automated response to chargeback — block all the services for that person. Just in case.
> Are you going to keep hosting your email with a company you trust so little you actually think they would disconnect you from their free service over a chargeback on a product they actually failed to provide? I get more and more glad I'm not a prisoner to their "free" services every day.
You are right, of course, but gmail brings a lot of value to me. I know that I should take a day off and get my own domain, set up regular backup from gmail and change accounts on various services to new domain, though.
Why would it? That could be an automated response to chargeback — block all the services for that person. Just in case.
> Are you going to keep hosting your email with a company you trust so little you actually think they would disconnect you from their free service over a chargeback on a product they actually failed to provide? I get more and more glad I'm not a prisoner to their "free" services every day.
You are right, of course, but gmail brings a lot of value to me. I know that I should take a day off and get my own domain, set up regular backup from gmail and change accounts on various services to new domain, though.
I think a policy of intentionally fucking over your users would get a lot of bad press. You can't hold people hostage.
[deleted]
This sucks.
Google is an engineering company, but one has to believe that they wouldn't purposefully engineer a robot to be this foolish. I have to believe it's actually people you're dealing with, people who have been programmed to behave like computers (YOU MUST PASTE THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH EMAIL).
It's frankly too banal and too non-sensical to be a robot programmed by Google; but in a way, a programmed customer service employee in a call center is a bit of a robot.
We should consider the impact repeated nonsense has on a persons ability to deal with situations in a fashion beyond rote memorization. We should consider the impact of dehumanizing folks in call centers. Google should try to understand how unique human interactions can make a contact center/email experience that much easier, instead of dehumanizing these moments for the sake of expediency.
Google is an engineering company, but one has to believe that they wouldn't purposefully engineer a robot to be this foolish. I have to believe it's actually people you're dealing with, people who have been programmed to behave like computers (YOU MUST PASTE THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH EMAIL).
It's frankly too banal and too non-sensical to be a robot programmed by Google; but in a way, a programmed customer service employee in a call center is a bit of a robot.
We should consider the impact repeated nonsense has on a persons ability to deal with situations in a fashion beyond rote memorization. We should consider the impact of dehumanizing folks in call centers. Google should try to understand how unique human interactions can make a contact center/email experience that much easier, instead of dehumanizing these moments for the sake of expediency.
Indeed, dehumanization appears to be an important issue.
The most unusual occurence I had was with VFS Global (visa handling company) employees. Every one of them had a paper sticker with a number on their tie; and all refused to tell me their name (asked out of courtesy), insisting I refer to them by their number if I have the need.
Is that a common thing in the US/UK? All this looked distinctly dystopian, and mildly surreal, to me.
The most unusual occurence I had was with VFS Global (visa handling company) employees. Every one of them had a paper sticker with a number on their tie; and all refused to tell me their name (asked out of courtesy), insisting I refer to them by their number if I have the need.
Is that a common thing in the US/UK? All this looked distinctly dystopian, and mildly surreal, to me.
You could go the Zappos route of actually empower customer service reps. But at the very least, I would expect Google to build better in house CRM tools to feed helpful content to the support reps rather than making them repeat themselves.
From what I've heard from friends at Google, internal tools like this have a notoriously hard time getting engineering resources. I wish they could turn it into a sexy machine learning project and actually get some resources on fixing this issue.
From what I've heard from friends at Google, internal tools like this have a notoriously hard time getting engineering resources. I wish they could turn it into a sexy machine learning project and actually get some resources on fixing this issue.
I believe that many of the customer service software solutions have what amount to pre-programmed macros. Eg they may have a 'greet' one saying "Hello ${NAME}, I will do everything I can to assist you." and another 'orderstatus' "I understand your message is about your order status."
The support rep can then chain together the macros for some or most of the response far quicker than they could ever type. And of course that increases their productivity (messages handled per hour) and possibly even has an effect on happy customers per hour although that is harder to measure and seems less of a interest.
The net result are email responses that are indistinguishable from robots, and I suspect the systems would take an initial stab at which macros should be used for a response.
The real problem is companies rarely seem to take the effort to work out why people used email or call centres instead of self service. For outsourced providers there is absolutely no incentive to do anything to reduce call volumes.
Joel also has a good article http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/customerservice.html
The support rep can then chain together the macros for some or most of the response far quicker than they could ever type. And of course that increases their productivity (messages handled per hour) and possibly even has an effect on happy customers per hour although that is harder to measure and seems less of a interest.
The net result are email responses that are indistinguishable from robots, and I suspect the systems would take an initial stab at which macros should be used for a response.
The real problem is companies rarely seem to take the effort to work out why people used email or call centres instead of self service. For outsourced providers there is absolutely no incentive to do anything to reduce call volumes.
Joel also has a good article http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/customerservice.html
I've worked in customer service, and the reps use 'canned text' all the time for common issues. I assumed this was common knowledge. Not doing so would be a recipe for RSI within a couple weeks.
The problem with canned text is when it's reused on the same person, which leads to anger on the part of the recepient (or suspicions that they're being serviced by a robot).
The problem with canned text is when it's reused on the same person, which leads to anger on the part of the recepient (or suspicions that they're being serviced by a robot).
I think it leads people to assume they have been forgotten about entirely and are starting over from zero each time they call.
I've never seen the software on the other side of a tech support email, but I have trouble imagining that in practice. When I am trying to interact with a customer service rep that only communicates through canned responses, it will inevitably take me three times as long, with maybe five times more writing (both from me and from them) than was necessary. I can't be the only one who has this experience.
It really depends on the problem. The canned text exists because certain issues are so common that they can be resolved with a pre-written response. That's typically the first thing the staff lean on when they see a contact from a customer.
The bigger problem is that customer service is a McJob, and pays like one, and the staff only deliver service on par with the salary they're given. Generally the people serving you could be getting paid multiples of their current salary if they could find a pizza delivery gig (no joke, pizza delivery can pay up to $30 an hour counting tips).
The bigger problem is that customer service is a McJob, and pays like one, and the staff only deliver service on par with the salary they're given. Generally the people serving you could be getting paid multiples of their current salary if they could find a pizza delivery gig (no joke, pizza delivery can pay up to $30 an hour counting tips).
That's because they are having five conversations at once.
The systems (especially for tier one support) have complete conversation templates. The people supporting the products at tier one often have no clue beyond trying to search for keywords in the knowledge base. Turn over is high enough that training is too expensive (of course, turn over is high due to lack of training).
In short, it's a complete joke.
Click canned response one
Switch to conv 2
Click canned response 5
Switch to conv 3
Click canned response 1
See there is a response from conv 1
Switch to conv 1
The systems (especially for tier one support) have complete conversation templates. The people supporting the products at tier one often have no clue beyond trying to search for keywords in the knowledge base. Turn over is high enough that training is too expensive (of course, turn over is high due to lack of training).
In short, it's a complete joke.
The article is talking about email, but in the case of live chat it varies from company to company. I did my time in chat support, but in my case I wrote my own templates and triggered them with AutoHotKey. By the time I left I'd written a bible of hotkeys for supporting our app.
You're right about there being five concurrent conversations though. Part of this is that the customers would take a great deal of time to respond, so it made more sense for me to be helping multiple people because I could juggle five conversations better than most people could handle one. The alternative was keeping all the other people in the queue while one person took two minutes per sentence to describe what their problem was.
You're right about there being five concurrent conversations though. Part of this is that the customers would take a great deal of time to respond, so it made more sense for me to be helping multiple people because I could juggle five conversations better than most people could handle one. The alternative was keeping all the other people in the queue while one person took two minutes per sentence to describe what their problem was.
Cheap products, great products, and good support. Pick two.
They're not cheap.
In what universe does a $299 nexus 4 not count as cheap?
A new iPhone costs $200 from any major US carrier. Most other Android phones are between $100 and $200.
At $300 or $350, the Nexus 4 is priced as a premium device.
At $300 or $350, the Nexus 4 is priced as a premium device.
[deleted]
> A new iPhone costs $200 from any major US carrier.
$200 is the cost to buy the phone.
In Europe, that's a down payment on a standard financing deal, and after the phone has been paid off, your monthly bill goes down.
In America, that's the price to straight-up purchase the phone. Your monthly bill will be the same regardless of whether you bought your phone from the carrier, or brought your own.
In Europe, that's a down payment on a standard financing deal, and after the phone has been paid off, your monthly bill goes down.
In America, that's the price to straight-up purchase the phone. Your monthly bill will be the same regardless of whether you bought your phone from the carrier, or brought your own.
If you get a feature phone, then cancel after a month, how much are you charged? How much are you charged if you got an iphone instead?
Depends on the carrier; with mine (Sprint), termination after one month would cost $200 for a basic phone, and $350 for any smartphone regardless of subsidy ( http://support.sprint.com/support/article/Learn_about_early_... ).
But most people do not cancel their contract after one month; they just wait out the term because carrier quality rarely changes so quickly that it's worth eating hundreds of dollars in termination fees to switch.
But most people do not cancel their contract after one month; they just wait out the term because carrier quality rarely changes so quickly that it's worth eating hundreds of dollars in termination fees to switch.
> But most people do not cancel their contract after one
> month; they just wait out the term because carrier quality
> rarely changes so quickly that it's worth eating hundreds
> of dollars in termination fees to switch.
That they don't break or lose their phone during the contract.
That they don't go overseas for a trip and end up paying expensive roaming charges or not using their fancy new phone.
That they can't save money by switching to another carrier (and this can be unexpected: see T-Mobile refarm).
That their home (or office or other place they care about coverage) doesn't move somewhere where their contracted carrier doesn't have acceptable coverage.
And that their definition of acceptable coverage doesn't change (e.g. being comfortable with HSPA coverage at the start of a contract, but later wanting LTE coverage for their new LTE phone).
That they don't end up in a committed relationship with someone on another carrier (preventing them from saving money by consolidating to a family plan).
And, and, and...
Do plenty of people win the gamble? Absolutely. Do plenty of people lose it too? Absolutely.
But you can't pretend that the gamble is cost-free. There are plenty of costs and strings attached.
[deleted]
Well compare oranges to oranges then. Nexus 4 is $50 on contract on T-Mobile, and is definitely cheaper than iPhone 5 on any of the three networks.
Also, no law dictates that you have to sign a contract to get cell service in America. One can as well choose from few of the cheaper prepaid services.
Also, no law dictates that you have to sign a contract to get cell service in America. One can as well choose from few of the cheaper prepaid services.
T-Mobile charges $200 for a Nexus 4; at least, they did the last time I was in one of their stores. And if there's one thing the Galaxy Nexus has taught me, it's that any Nexus purchased from a carrier will provide a much worse experience than one purchased on Play (due to carrier malware and delayed software updates).
If you're comparing different service providers, then of course there will be some who have lower monthly rates and higher initial purchase prices. The tradeoff is that these providers usually provide much lower-quality service.
> Also, no law dictates that you have to sign a contract
> to get cell service in America. One can as well choose
> from few of the cheaper prepaid services.
If you're comparing different service providers, then of course there will be some who have lower monthly rates and higher initial purchase prices. The tradeoff is that these providers usually provide much lower-quality service.
No they do not. I personally use T-Mobile $30 monthly prepaid plan with 100 minutes/5 GB/unlimited text. The service is no way inferior to any regular service that T-mobile provides.
Whether you buy Nexus 4 from T-mobile for 50 bucks and pay more monthly bill with contract, or choose one of their prepaid plan and pay less TCO, the phone and software is exactly the same. I thought you would know this, you work at Google.
The cell companies do what you have effectively said before, they price differentiate based on who can pay what. Don't have money to buy phone upfront, well we will sell you for cheap and make the difference in contract rate. Have more money? Well then BYOD and get our cheaper prepaid services.
I will concede on one point, the big 4 (except T-mobile) make it incredibly hard for you to find and compare their prepaid services, for obvious reason that contract customer bring in more money over years.
Whether you buy Nexus 4 from T-mobile for 50 bucks and pay more monthly bill with contract, or choose one of their prepaid plan and pay less TCO, the phone and software is exactly the same. I thought you would know this, you work at Google.
The cell companies do what you have effectively said before, they price differentiate based on who can pay what. Don't have money to buy phone upfront, well we will sell you for cheap and make the difference in contract rate. Have more money? Well then BYOD and get our cheaper prepaid services.
I will concede on one point, the big 4 (except T-mobile) make it incredibly hard for you to find and compare their prepaid services, for obvious reason that contract customer bring in more money over years.
> No they do not. I personally use T-Mobile $30 monthly
> prepaid plan with 100 minutes/5 GB/unlimited text. The
> service is no way inferior to any regular service that
> T-mobile provides.
[deleted]
> Equivalent service from the same provider is typically
> charged at the same rate, regardless of whether the
> customer has a contract. That's my point -- since there's
> no difference in service price, it's silly to say the
> phone is more expensive under a contract plan.
Second, even putting aside T-Mobile for a moment, there are plenty of other cost-of-ownership differences between a contract iPhone and a non-contract iPhone. For instance, absent additional coverage (e.g. extended warranty or equipment insurance), suppose you break it. How much will it cost to replace? If you haven't signed a contract, you have the option of signing one to subsidize the cost of a replacement, but if you have a contract, then what? Or suppose you take a trip overseas. Will you be able keep using your iPhone without exorbitant roaming charges by getting a local SIM? It depends. And so on.
Heck, I'll sell you an iPhone 5 for $1 if you agree to sign up for my 2 year Good Vibes Karma service (I send "good vibes" your way monthly; phone services not included) at $50/month. Cancelling the service incurs an $800 early termination fee. If that's a $1 phone to you, can you direct me to any friends and family who think the same way? I feel I may be selling a lot of $1 iPhones.
Your service is worthless, but the service that comes with an iPhone is required for the phone to operate.
The point you're missing is that the paid service is subsidizing the $200 price, much like my useless Good Vibes service subsidizes the $1 price. As both AT&T and Sprint indicate on their websites, the straight-up purchase price is $649.99 for an iPhone 5:
http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/apple/iphone/5-16gb...
http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/phone_details.jsp?prodI...
If you don't want to pay the straight-up price, you can subsidize it with a minimum voice and data monthly plan. Then it becomes a bundled package. You cannot separate the phone from the bundle and say that the bundled price is the straight-up price.
For Sprint, their minimum plan (advertised online) is $79.99 a month. So for 2 years, that's a bundle price of $2119.75 for the iPhone 5 and service. If you don't want the bundle price, your only option is to pay $649.99 for the iPhone 5.
Also note that cell phone service is not a requirement. You can use the iPhone as a WiFi iPod and get an inactive SIM so that you can use the phone for 911 calls, to which the carriers must complete all calls even if you have no service.
http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/apple/iphone/5-16gb...
http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/phone_details.jsp?prodI...
If you don't want to pay the straight-up price, you can subsidize it with a minimum voice and data monthly plan. Then it becomes a bundled package. You cannot separate the phone from the bundle and say that the bundled price is the straight-up price.
For Sprint, their minimum plan (advertised online) is $79.99 a month. So for 2 years, that's a bundle price of $2119.75 for the iPhone 5 and service. If you don't want the bundle price, your only option is to pay $649.99 for the iPhone 5.
Also note that cell phone service is not a requirement. You can use the iPhone as a WiFi iPod and get an inactive SIM so that you can use the phone for 911 calls, to which the carriers must complete all calls even if you have no service.
If i go to the AT&T website, they list the iPhone 5 at $649. you get a $450 subsidy by signing up for a 2-year contract, but that doesn't mean the phone is priced at $199.
Say you buy the phone for $650, and then sign up for service at $80/month or whatever AT&T charges.
Meanwhile, your friend Susan buys $200 for the phone, and signs up for the same service at the same $80/month.
The only difference is that she promised to pay a fee if she decides to switch carriers in the next two years.
Do you still think the phone is really priced at $650? To me, it seems like some fairly trivial market segmentation. The phone's regular price is $200, but they're making some extra money from people who place an abnormally high value on being able to switch providers on a whim.
Meanwhile, your friend Susan buys $200 for the phone, and signs up for the same service at the same $80/month.
The only difference is that she promised to pay a fee if she decides to switch carriers in the next two years.
Do you still think the phone is really priced at $650? To me, it seems like some fairly trivial market segmentation. The phone's regular price is $200, but they're making some extra money from people who place an abnormally high value on being able to switch providers on a whim.
Or, you buy a $299 Nexus 4 and sign up for $45/m no contract service instead of $80+/m 2 year contract.
Damn after seeing your comment went to check its price here in Switzerland, it's 482 CHF (525 USD).
http://en.toppreise.ch/index.php?search=nexus+4&sRes=OK
http://en.toppreise.ch/index.php?search=nexus+4&sRes=OK
exactly, because at that price you aren't buying it from google, you're buying it from a local retailer. Here in canada we have the play store and can buy it for $309, or we can buy it for ~$500 from a local retailer. If you pay the extra $200, chances are you'll have a slightly better purchasing experience than you would through the play store. Google is buying the right to provide you with shitty service.
I was recently asked to fill in a 'customer experience report' for my Nexus 4 purchase by Google. Lets just say, that whilst the service I got wasn't quite the clown car special that this guy was given, it wasn't great either. Not that I expect them to take a blind bit of notice of my carefully worded response.
At this point, I wouldn't advise any of my friends or family to buy physical hardware from Google Play: the customer service is just atrocious & if anything went wrong I'd feel responsible.
At this point, I wouldn't advise any of my friends or family to buy physical hardware from Google Play: the customer service is just atrocious & if anything went wrong I'd feel responsible.
Why is it that Google gets a free pass on customer support?
We somehow implicitly trust that they're doing good in all other areas, but there is absolutely no circumstance in the entire company where a customer can reach a person and receive true support.
Why do they get to do this, and no other company can?
We somehow implicitly trust that they're doing good in all other areas, but there is absolutely no circumstance in the entire company where a customer can reach a person and receive true support.
Why do they get to do this, and no other company can?
Probably because google doesn't make it's money directly from the majority of people using it's services.
And those that do pay do get support http://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1385067?hl=en
And I believe there is some support for apps for business.
And those that do pay do get support http://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1385067?hl=en
And I believe there is some support for apps for business.
Google gets a free pass on customer support? You can't go a day on HN and many other places without people bitching about Google customer support. Unless you want some sort of legally mandated level of support, I don't see what you would like to happen. If customer service is important to you (and Google is clearly betting it isn't that important), then don't use Google services.
I apologize for posting "This.", but I must: Customer support is by far the most commonly criticized facet of Google. It is very widely known to be a debacle, and the truth is that many of us refuse to recommend that less tolerant people do anything with Google that demands customer service (I have never recommended anyone buy devices from the Google Play store after my own debacles with their system).
It's hardly just Google. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter all get away with the same sort of thing. Try and find a phone number to call them.
What about Amazon? I've never talked to anyone on the phone, but I've had them take care of fucked up orders immediately with little question. Dented book? New one is on the way before I even drop the old one off at UPS.
American Express? Quick call and fraudulent charges are immediately removed.
As such, I spend millions of dollars through American Express and virtually all of my retail shopping through Amazon. I've dumped service providers who don't accept American Express and avoid purchasing countless products not offered for sale through Amazon.
My response to inadequate customer service is as follows. In the name of efficiency I'd recommend the following:
1 - Answer about problem being resolved 2 - Problem not resolved (24 hours) 3 - Inadequate answer 4 - I am sorry I will have to issue a charge back for your failure to deliver on services as represented. 5 - Problem solved, either by me or them.
American Express? Quick call and fraudulent charges are immediately removed.
As such, I spend millions of dollars through American Express and virtually all of my retail shopping through Amazon. I've dumped service providers who don't accept American Express and avoid purchasing countless products not offered for sale through Amazon.
My response to inadequate customer service is as follows. In the name of efficiency I'd recommend the following:
1 - Answer about problem being resolved 2 - Problem not resolved (24 hours) 3 - Inadequate answer 4 - I am sorry I will have to issue a charge back for your failure to deliver on services as represented. 5 - Problem solved, either by me or them.
I use Amazon and American Express for the same reason.
I'm just saying Google is hardly unique. Amazon and Amex are notable for their good support, not the other way around.
I'm just saying Google is hardly unique. Amazon and Amex are notable for their good support, not the other way around.
I think the point with Amazon is: if something goes wrong, they give you your money back. Once the post man wasn't able to deliver, before I even realized, I had the money I paid back on my bank account.
Negative example eBay: when something goes wrong, they take no responsibilty and ask you to take a lawyer if you are not satisfied with that. Even with pure humans this is fast enough.
Negative example eBay: when something goes wrong, they take no responsibilty and ask you to take a lawyer if you are not satisfied with that. Even with pure humans this is fast enough.
American Express is so completely unlike the other providers when it comes to engendering customer loyalty (cardholder since the 80s), it makes me think there has to be room for a Visa/MasterCard provider to distinguish themselves through customer support.
And agreed for Amazon as well. Their support is good enough it changes my shopping choice. I'll choose Prime even if the item is a bit more to be sure to ship from their warehouse and have their service.
And agreed for Amazon as well. Their support is good enough it changes my shopping choice. I'll choose Prime even if the item is a bit more to be sure to ship from their warehouse and have their service.
On the other hand, eBay insist you call them and won't rpovide an email address. So tough luck if you want to keep a written record of your communications.
Why is it that Comcast has a free pass? I think there is something to do with monop... some board game.
BTW, Comcast brand has been damaged by their bad customer service (and bad service in general). So they just renamed their service to Xfinity.
BTW, Comcast brand has been damaged by their bad customer service (and bad service in general). So they just renamed their service to Xfinity.
It's okay, hammer grammie is still around.
http://consumerist.com/2007/10/19/legend-of-comcast-office-s...
http://consumerist.com/2007/10/19/legend-of-comcast-office-s...
In my experience they've taken a U turn in that area. I won't say they're good yet, but it's obvious they're trying to improve. It's a good market correction, they realized they couldn't just do nothing about their reputation.
> We somehow implicitly trust that they're doing good in all other areas, but there is absolutely no circumstance in the entire company where a customer can reach a person and receive true support.
That's not true. Their customer support will call you so frequently it's almost harassment if you're actually a customer to them; i.e., have an Adwords account. Now they've started selling consumer electronics, they should expand of course and I'm not giving any free passes. But don't pretend that they don't have a very, very large and extremely active and excellent customer support department. They do. They just choose not to use it with 99% of their customers.
That's not true. Their customer support will call you so frequently it's almost harassment if you're actually a customer to them; i.e., have an Adwords account. Now they've started selling consumer electronics, they should expand of course and I'm not giving any free passes. But don't pretend that they don't have a very, very large and extremely active and excellent customer support department. They do. They just choose not to use it with 99% of their customers.
The 99% aren't customers.
They're the product.
"If you're not paying money, you're the product being sold" is one of those cached phrases that looks insightful on first glance, but contains no actual substance.
Every human using Google is a customer. For most customers, the product is search results, and their payment is to let part of their screen be occupied by ads. For advertisers, the product is X pixels of advertising text, and the payment is dollars (or euros, or yen, etc).
Currently, the exchange rate between pixels and dollars is so extreme that it's not cost-effective to provide support to those customers who are only paying in pixels. Customers who pay in dollars (advertisers are one, but also people who have a paid Gmail account, or have bought more Drive storage, etc) do receive support.
---
But that's all beside the point. The original story is about someone who paid hundreds of dollars for a phone, and received terrible support. Even if you hold the position that all free services are inherently exploitive, don't you think that someone who spent that much money should be receiving top-quality support?
Every human using Google is a customer. For most customers, the product is search results, and their payment is to let part of their screen be occupied by ads. For advertisers, the product is X pixels of advertising text, and the payment is dollars (or euros, or yen, etc).
Currently, the exchange rate between pixels and dollars is so extreme that it's not cost-effective to provide support to those customers who are only paying in pixels. Customers who pay in dollars (advertisers are one, but also people who have a paid Gmail account, or have bought more Drive storage, etc) do receive support.
---
But that's all beside the point. The original story is about someone who paid hundreds of dollars for a phone, and received terrible support. Even if you hold the position that all free services are inherently exploitive, don't you think that someone who spent that much money should be receiving top-quality support?
On this view, you could argue that a dairy cow is a farmer's customer. The cow gets food and pays for it with milk. Or a fish is a fisherman's customer: the fish gets food, and pays for it with some pain and inconvenience (in the case of catch-and-release) or with its life.
It is useful to distinguish transactions that involve money from transactions that don't, and to restrict the word "customer" to apply only to those situations where money is exchanged, if for no other reason than that only in situations where money is exchanged is it clear who is the customer: it's the person who pays.
Google's advertisers are its customers. The (attention of the) people doing the searches are the product. Search results are the means by which the product is procured, not unlike the bait on the fisherman's hook.
It is useful to distinguish transactions that involve money from transactions that don't, and to restrict the word "customer" to apply only to those situations where money is exchanged, if for no other reason than that only in situations where money is exchanged is it clear who is the customer: it's the person who pays.
Google's advertisers are its customers. The (attention of the) people doing the searches are the product. Search results are the means by which the product is procured, not unlike the bait on the fisherman's hook.
The difference is consent, not the medium of exchange. A fish can't consent to be part of the dinner-diner relationship.
A doctor and an armed mugger are different because even though in both cases they are given money in exchange for life, the doctor's patient[1] consented to do so.
Also, restricting customers to people who pay with money excludes transactions based on bartering or favors. If I design a nice website for someone and they give me a bottle of wine, that's still a customer relationship even though no money has changed hands.
[1] Or their guardian, legal representative, etc.
A doctor and an armed mugger are different because even though in both cases they are given money in exchange for life, the doctor's patient[1] consented to do so.
Also, restricting customers to people who pay with money excludes transactions based on bartering or favors. If I design a nice website for someone and they give me a bottle of wine, that's still a customer relationship even though no money has changed hands.
[1] Or their guardian, legal representative, etc.
Exchange of money is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have a customer relationship.
As for voluntariness, it is arguable that the fish enters into the transaction voluntarily, if perhaps not fully informed. But here's a better example: my cat provides certain intangible benefits to me in exchange for food. I can assure you that my cat is entering into this exchange voluntarily. Who is the customer?
Still not satisfied? Fine. Two kids collect baseball cards. They agree to trade a Hank Aaron for a Babe Ruth. Who is the customer?
Unlike a barter relationship, a customer-provider relationship is necessarily asymmetric. The only way to reliably identify which way the asymmetry runs is to follow the money.
As for voluntariness, it is arguable that the fish enters into the transaction voluntarily, if perhaps not fully informed. But here's a better example: my cat provides certain intangible benefits to me in exchange for food. I can assure you that my cat is entering into this exchange voluntarily. Who is the customer?
Still not satisfied? Fine. Two kids collect baseball cards. They agree to trade a Hank Aaron for a Babe Ruth. Who is the customer?
Unlike a barter relationship, a customer-provider relationship is necessarily asymmetric. The only way to reliably identify which way the asymmetry runs is to follow the money.
> As for voluntariness, it is arguable that the fish
> enters into the transaction voluntarily, if perhaps not
> fully informed.
> [...]
> my cat provides certain intangible benefits to me in
> exchange for food. I can assure you that my cat is
> entering into this exchange voluntarily. Who is the
> customer?
> Fine. Two kids collect baseball cards. They agree to
> trade a Hank Aaron for a Babe Ruth. Who is the customer?
If both (or neither) know the value of the cards, and there's no coercion, then the customer is whoever initiated the trade. They understood what was involved just as well as the other kid, and made the informed decision that they wanted to exchange the cards.
> Unlike a barter relationship, a customer-provider
> relationship is necessarily asymmetric. The only way
> to reliably identify which way the asymmetry runs is
> to follow the money.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.
"A fish or cat or any animal, cannot consent to anything due to lack of intelligence."
Now come over to my house and try to pet my cat without her consent...
Not really on-topic in any way but I just dislike people who disrespect animals.
Now come over to my house and try to pet my cat without her consent...
Not really on-topic in any way but I just dislike people who disrespect animals.
>For most customers, the product is search results, and their payment is to let part of their screen be occupied by ads.
Would you say adblockers are theft?
Is every consenting value exchange a customer-provider relationship?
>the ideal of such a relationship assumes perfect balance -- two people with things worthless to themselves, but valuable to the other.
Not worthless, just worth less. If I buy a product/service, I felt my money had less worth than what I was buying and the provider held the opposite stance.
Would you say adblockers are theft?
Is every consenting value exchange a customer-provider relationship?
>the ideal of such a relationship assumes perfect balance -- two people with things worthless to themselves, but valuable to the other.
Not worthless, just worth less. If I buy a product/service, I felt my money had less worth than what I was buying and the provider held the opposite stance.
>If I design a nice website for someone and they give me a bottle of wine, that's still a customer relationship even though no money has changed hands.
But who is the customer?
But who is the customer?
> cached phrases
I think you mean "catchphrases."
I think you mean "catchphrases."
No, I specifically mean "cached phrases": http://lesswrong.com/lw/749/cached_phrases/
The fact that someone has a web page devoted to this particular eggcorn doesn't change the fact that it is an eggcorn:
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=4566
The fact that "cached phrase" has a similar pronunciation to "catchphrase" does not mean that they are related. In particular, this is not an instance of an eggcorn because substituting one for the other will result in a sentence that does not make sense. The quotes in the page you link to are instances of malapropism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism ).
We are the products because we are being sold by Google to advertisers.
Google doesn't sell people to advertisers. For one thing, that would be illegal. For another, they don't have a delivery infrastructure that would support it. And, finally, advertisers aren't interested in buying people, they are interested in buying advertising impressions (particularly, ones that are targeted so as to be more likely to produce sales.)
What Google does is use information it receives from users to sell targeted advertising impressions in services that the users use. The users are suppliers -- both of the information and the advertising opportunities -- rather than either "customers" or "products".
What Google does is use information it receives from users to sell targeted advertising impressions in services that the users use. The users are suppliers -- both of the information and the advertising opportunities -- rather than either "customers" or "products".
>"If you're not paying money, you're the product being sold" is one of those cached phrases that looks insightful on first glance, but contains no actual substance.
And that summary judgement follows a familiar pattern: 'This is meant to be insightful, but actually... let me show how the prevailing wisdom is wrong, with my new improved analysis'
The problem here, is that you're trying to be too clever in order to stretch words beyond their common usage.
Some personal perspective: Myself and the rest of the EA (Enterprise Architecture) team at my prior company spent almost a month painfully debating the meaning of word "Customer". Yes, I know, crazy and yet we had good reason for the corporate dictionary to be accurate. Financial control systems and exec reporting relied on it. But I digress, and while I can't remember the exact definition we used, the essential fact is:
A customer pays for goods or services.
It doesn't matter if they use dollars, bitcoins, or bushels of corn. Nearly all users of Google are NOT customers, and indeed do form part of the product offering, as the OP stated.
Additional references:
"A customer (also known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is the recipient of a good, service, product, or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor, or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration. [1][2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/customer
And that summary judgement follows a familiar pattern: 'This is meant to be insightful, but actually... let me show how the prevailing wisdom is wrong, with my new improved analysis'
The problem here, is that you're trying to be too clever in order to stretch words beyond their common usage.
Some personal perspective: Myself and the rest of the EA (Enterprise Architecture) team at my prior company spent almost a month painfully debating the meaning of word "Customer". Yes, I know, crazy and yet we had good reason for the corporate dictionary to be accurate. Financial control systems and exec reporting relied on it. But I digress, and while I can't remember the exact definition we used, the essential fact is:
A customer pays for goods or services.
It doesn't matter if they use dollars, bitcoins, or bushels of corn. Nearly all users of Google are NOT customers, and indeed do form part of the product offering, as the OP stated.
Additional references:
"A customer (also known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is the recipient of a good, service, product, or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor, or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration. [1][2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/customer
In that definition, the surrender of part of the browser window to advertisement is the "valuable consideration". It's only worth tiny fractions of a cent, sure, but heap those fractions up high enough and it becomes worthwhile.
For your position (that ad-supported implies searcher is not the customer) to be correct, there would have to be some minimum amount of cost involved before a human can become a customer. Say the search engine charges one dollar per query. The searcher must be the customer, obviously. What if the search engine charges one a penny per query? Is the searcher still the customer? What about one thousandth? One millionth?
At what point does the searcher's expenditure fall so low that you consider them to be a product, rather than a human?
---
Aside:
Apart from my day job, I write a lot of software. Some of it is made available for use for no monetary charge, and supported by ads. I do not consider the humans who use my software to be "products", nor the advertisement networks to be "customers". To say that someone is a product just because they don't want to pay money for something strikes me as borderline sociopathic.
For your position (that ad-supported implies searcher is not the customer) to be correct, there would have to be some minimum amount of cost involved before a human can become a customer. Say the search engine charges one dollar per query. The searcher must be the customer, obviously. What if the search engine charges one a penny per query? Is the searcher still the customer? What about one thousandth? One millionth?
At what point does the searcher's expenditure fall so low that you consider them to be a product, rather than a human?
---
Aside:
Apart from my day job, I write a lot of software. Some of it is made available for use for no monetary charge, and supported by ads. I do not consider the humans who use my software to be "products", nor the advertisement networks to be "customers". To say that someone is a product just because they don't want to pay money for something strikes me as borderline sociopathic.
"To say that someone is a product just because they don't want to pay money for something strikes me as borderline sociopathic."
Subjective feelings, while perfectly reasonable and acceptable in their own right, should maintain little bearing on the objective and consensually derived definitions of words, if one is being intellectually honest.
Simply put, it would be a stretch to convince us that your distaste for the concept (calling it 'borderline sociopathic') is not influencing your POV.
Subjective feelings, while perfectly reasonable and acceptable in their own right, should maintain little bearing on the objective and consensually derived definitions of words, if one is being intellectually honest.
Simply put, it would be a stretch to convince us that your distaste for the concept (calling it 'borderline sociopathic') is not influencing your POV.
> A customer pays for goods or services.
True
> It doesn't matter if they use dollars, bitcoins, or bushels of corn.
Or, say, personal information that can be used in targeting advertising.
> Nearly all users of Google are NOT customers
I'd describe them a suppliers, but unless you've suddenly decided that, contrary your early statement, it does matter what they provide in exchange for the services they receive, they can also, by your logic, be described accurately as "customers".
> and indeed do form part of the product offering, as the OP stated
No, the users do not form part of the product offering; the slave trade is not part of Google's business models.
They are suppliers of inputs (both information used in targeting advertising, and the advertising opportunities through which the actual advertising is delivered being the key pair of inputs) that are used in Google's product offerings; insofar as these inputs are exchanged for services Google provides rather than for cash payment, they are also customers purchasing those services in a non-cash exchange.
True
> It doesn't matter if they use dollars, bitcoins, or bushels of corn.
Or, say, personal information that can be used in targeting advertising.
> Nearly all users of Google are NOT customers
I'd describe them a suppliers, but unless you've suddenly decided that, contrary your early statement, it does matter what they provide in exchange for the services they receive, they can also, by your logic, be described accurately as "customers".
> and indeed do form part of the product offering, as the OP stated
No, the users do not form part of the product offering; the slave trade is not part of Google's business models.
They are suppliers of inputs (both information used in targeting advertising, and the advertising opportunities through which the actual advertising is delivered being the key pair of inputs) that are used in Google's product offerings; insofar as these inputs are exchanged for services Google provides rather than for cash payment, they are also customers purchasing those services in a non-cash exchange.
"Or, say, personal information that can be used in targeting advertising."
This time, it's the word 'pay' that is being shoehorned.
Let's assume I run a survey company, and I invite a bunch of people over for a BBQ. During lunch I passively monitor their interactions and sell that data. Did the guests pay for the BBQ?
">I'd describe them a suppliers,"
That is a bit more specific and possibly more accurate, but at least 67% less sexy ;).
However it does not invalidate the original product claim. Often suppliers are part of that chain. They supply raw goods (personal data in this case) that gets packaged as part of a product offering (aka adwords) or service, and then sold to the customer.
This time, it's the word 'pay' that is being shoehorned.
Let's assume I run a survey company, and I invite a bunch of people over for a BBQ. During lunch I passively monitor their interactions and sell that data. Did the guests pay for the BBQ?
">I'd describe them a suppliers,"
That is a bit more specific and possibly more accurate, but at least 67% less sexy ;).
However it does not invalidate the original product claim. Often suppliers are part of that chain. They supply raw goods (personal data in this case) that gets packaged as part of a product offering (aka adwords) or service, and then sold to the customer.
> Let's assume I run a survey company, and I invite a
> bunch of people over for a BBQ. I then monitor their
> interactions and sell that data. Did the guest pay for
> the BBQ?
If you did not tell them, then you spied on them without consent, and they would be victims.
I actually find it very insightful, even if it has been repeated a number of times. And repetition hasn't eroded its truth.
At the end of the day, real estate on a screen is means to an end, not the ultimate end itself. The ultimate end is of course money, which is paid by advertisers. The means to an end is more properly viewed as a factor of Google's production than an end itself.
I would distinguish linguistically by saying that I am a user of google's products, but not a customer. A customer pays.
At the end of the day, real estate on a screen is means to an end, not the ultimate end itself. The ultimate end is of course money, which is paid by advertisers. The means to an end is more properly viewed as a factor of Google's production than an end itself.
I would distinguish linguistically by saying that I am a user of google's products, but not a customer. A customer pays.
[deleted]
[deleted]
They are neither "customer" nor "product", they are suppliers, both of information which Google uses to assemble their targeted advertising delivery product, and of the actual advertising page impression opportunities.
They get less individualized attention then either customers or many other kinds of suppliers because there are lots of suppliers of the same inputs and the marginal value of each one of them to Google's business is very, very low, such that spending significant resources on direct support would very quickly turn them into a net liability.
They get less individualized attention then either customers or many other kinds of suppliers because there are lots of suppliers of the same inputs and the marginal value of each one of them to Google's business is very, very low, such that spending significant resources on direct support would very quickly turn them into a net liability.
They are customers of google search in that they buy search results in exchange for screen real estate and suppliers for the reasons you stated above. Google cares deeply about satisfying their search customers because they are also the suppliers of page impressions and personal information.
Why must it be one or the other?
Why must it be one or the other?
but there is absolutely no circumstance in the entire company where a customer can reach a person and receive true support.
Google Apps has great phone support if you're paying for it: http://contact.googleapps.com/?&rd=1
Google Apps has great phone support if you're paying for it: http://contact.googleapps.com/?&rd=1
No it DOES NOT.
For example, delivery to our email is delayed by up to 48 hours and no help from them. The ticket is open for a month and each phone conversation starts from zero (disable filters, clear up cookies, bla bla). There is no follow up, progress, etc.
[deleted]
You couldn't be more wrong. Just ask Paul Graham about how much of his e-mail was lost by google apps.
They don't. But when it reaches a tipping point they'll feel sorry for the arrogance they displayed while they were on top.
If you read the blog post, at the end he decides to call, and does reach a person, who helps by getting his purchase refunded. It is not clear why he waited so long to call Google Support.
Which still wasn't what he actually asked for or wanted. "Please place your order again" was the wrong answer when he already placed an order and the system clearly had that order on file.
You are wrong. The right quote is "Your order will be cancelled and refunded within the next 3-5 business days. If you still want the device, please place a new order", which makes sense. IOW while the first order was being cancelled, the representative informed that if he still wanted the device, he should place a new order.
Wrong how? Everything you quoted agreed with the post you replied to.
It most certainly does not make sense to cancel the order for someone that doesn't want to cancel.
It most certainly does not make sense to cancel the order for someone that doesn't want to cancel.
My point is that the order was not "on file" anymore as it was being cancelled/refunded.
I agree it is inconvenient to ask a customer to cancel and replace an order (the support rep could be doing that transparently for the customer), but it seems it was a very unusual case (theft or loss of the package) so it is reasonable to expect a somewhat unusual process to resolve the situation.
I agree it is inconvenient to ask a customer to cancel and replace an order (the support rep could be doing that transparently for the customer), but it seems it was a very unusual case (theft or loss of the package) so it is reasonable to expect a somewhat unusual process to resolve the situation.
Not at all: it's you who don't seem to have read the post. He reaches a person, who completely fails to help in any way. Eventually after a further series of emails, someone cancels his order and fails to ship him the actual phone he'd been waiting for. I can't see how calling Support earlier would have helped.
[deleted]
You are right, I confused Saurabh and Æsa. However, 5 days after calling, he received an offer to cancel the purchase & disable the device, which may indicate that the phone call did help trigger something.
Not the same problem but my Nexus 4 stopped recognizing SIM cards. I do not have a landline. Only way to make first contact with Google Support is by phone. Therein lies the rub. Once I did get my friend to lend me their phone it was pretty painless but it was still silly that the only means of making contact is by phone and then every other bit of correspondence since there was by Email.
One other option might have been making the phone call from inside Gmail via your computer.
http://www.google.com/chat/voice/
I've personally learned the hard reality that most people currently alive cannot use email correctly and therefore demand that everyone they do business with provide phone support. Because of this, the path of least resistance is to just be like them and get used to calling when you need something resolved. (And the reality is, it's faster for the people at the other end, which is why it persists.)
http://www.google.com/chat/voice/
I've personally learned the hard reality that most people currently alive cannot use email correctly and therefore demand that everyone they do business with provide phone support. Because of this, the path of least resistance is to just be like them and get used to calling when you need something resolved. (And the reality is, it's faster for the people at the other end, which is why it persists.)
I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of bullshit to save $150 on a phone (that's effectively the discount you get by ordering the Nexus 4 from the totally broken Play store).
Because those products are free. Even the Nexus Phones are probably free, as in Google makes no money with them.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people inside Google think that way, but their margin is not my problem. I assume that anything that costs $300 comes with support. And anyone who accepts credit cards needs to provide enough support to avoid chargebacks from confused customers.
I assume that anything that includes "support" in its product description when I purchase it includes support exactly as described.
Assuming more than that is unwarranted, and assuming that free additional services not advertised are included with products because of high price is especially unwarranted.
Assuming more than that is unwarranted, and assuming that free additional services not advertised are included with products because of high price is especially unwarranted.
What are you talking about here? I'm pretty sure 'actually delivering the product' is not a 'free additional service'.
The only customers Google has are the ones that pay it to place ads. Everyone else is the product.
Even Android and all these devices are probably not directly making them that much money, they just want you to use the web more and use Microsoft and Apple products less.
Even Android and all these devices are probably not directly making them that much money, they just want you to use the web more and use Microsoft and Apple products less.
There's a sense in which this is true, but it's a really facile argument that doesn't get to the heart of the relationship between Google and the people who use it. "You're the product" implies that they're just using you, man, and that if people were more sophisticated they wouldn't put up with this treatment.
In practice I find that the most sophisticated internet users are among the heaviest users of Google products, which implies that the value proposition that Google provides is good even if you understand how their business works. The product doesn't generally extract value from the producer when it's sold to the consumer, but I get an enormous amount of value from using Google.
In practice I find that the most sophisticated internet users are among the heaviest users of Google products, which implies that the value proposition that Google provides is good even if you understand how their business works. The product doesn't generally extract value from the producer when it's sold to the consumer, but I get an enormous amount of value from using Google.
I'm late to this thread but I do know Google has a very large technical support team for businesses using Google Docs.
Not only that but, don't forget Google does get audited annually, which their "customers" [businesses] do see, read, and determine whether or not they feel comfortable continuing to do business with Google.
[I'm an IT auditor]
Not only that but, don't forget Google does get audited annually, which their "customers" [businesses] do see, read, and determine whether or not they feel comfortable continuing to do business with Google.
[I'm an IT auditor]
Because a lot of their customer base are engineers who consistently get sold by the technology and not support in the larger sense. Technology myopia at its near worst.
This man has far more faith in Google than I do... I ordered on day one, and gave up after about 6 weeks. While the Note II isn't perfect, I could buy one in a store right away.
On the robot CSRs: it honestly seemed like they had been given about 4 hours of training, which consisted of madlibs-style repetition of whatever you said. I got a bit hyperbolic in a later support call, and one of them honestly said:
"I understand it can be a bit frustrating when, uhh, companies play with your emotions and lie about when your Nexus 4 device (tm) will arrive."
This wasn't a text chat. This was someone acting like a 80's AI over the phone. After they parroted my complaint, they would immediately escalate me to a specialist. Once I talked to a manager, who escalated me 'differently'. I have no idea if any specialist ever replied; I got a few follow up emails which basically said 'Thanks for calling! Keep on keeping on'.
Cancelling was actually the best, easiest thing I did with Google. Ordering was painful, waiting was aggravating, but telling them "I don't want the damn thing" went over surprisingly well.
On the robot CSRs: it honestly seemed like they had been given about 4 hours of training, which consisted of madlibs-style repetition of whatever you said. I got a bit hyperbolic in a later support call, and one of them honestly said:
"I understand it can be a bit frustrating when, uhh, companies play with your emotions and lie about when your Nexus 4 device (tm) will arrive."
This wasn't a text chat. This was someone acting like a 80's AI over the phone. After they parroted my complaint, they would immediately escalate me to a specialist. Once I talked to a manager, who escalated me 'differently'. I have no idea if any specialist ever replied; I got a few follow up emails which basically said 'Thanks for calling! Keep on keeping on'.
Cancelling was actually the best, easiest thing I did with Google. Ordering was painful, waiting was aggravating, but telling them "I don't want the damn thing" went over surprisingly well.
I know using a phone is so 20th century but Google Play actually has a dedicated call center for providing support. When I ordered a Nexus 7 back in July I was wondering when it would arrive so I called. Within 2 minutes of waiting I was talking to a friendly human.
Really? When my nexus 7 had a broken screen I tried to phone them up but the only number was in the United States. That may be wonderful if you live in the United States, but it seems the rest of the world will just have to do without ...
Get a Skype mate. Its just 89 cents per month to call to USA. http://www.skype.com/en/rates/
Can you screenshot that or something? The only price for US calls I have ever heard is $3.
A lot of responses here seem to say that support for cheap/free phones is not profitable. That's not a good excuse. Amazon doesn't really make much money on the Kindle hardware, but the support is amazing.
That raises the question, why didn't Google just let the factories ship to Amazon and let Amazon handle sales and customer service(related to shipping, not technical)? I guess the Play Store was an attempt at branding similar to Apple store, but the customer experience seems to be damaging the brand.
That raises the question, why didn't Google just let the factories ship to Amazon and let Amazon handle sales and customer service(related to shipping, not technical)? I guess the Play Store was an attempt at branding similar to Apple store, but the customer experience seems to be damaging the brand.
Amazon has to mark up products over wholesale to cover the cost of things like... the customer support that they actually provide. In the Play store Google can sell the Nexus at wholesale to make it look cheaper.
The question is, if Google sold the Nexus (say, $329 from $299) with a slight markup to raise their support, would you still buy it?
[deleted]
This post is scary. I have been operating under a new set of rules. I refuse to by goods/services from customer service deficient firms. It has been working great and dealing with small teams and companies that provide fantastic service makes your life easy and efficient. Not to mention building great relationships. I make sure to buy a service from a startup, e.g cloud storage rather than for instance Amazon.
[deleted]
Not making a whole lot of sense. You gamed the system by having three different browsers place an order (imagine how it must have been like?) and then you complain? Where is ethics of placing an order online? Wouldn't you have been better off following what your single browser screen said the first time?
That's the problem with Google. There is NO customer support. I had a website back in the days that was bringing me good money. A spam alerts from google tells me that I have to delete some spam pages of my website (which is generated by user content) in the 3 next work days otherwise they'll ban my account. I look through the pages and CAN'T find anything spammy, I decide to mail them something along those lines "I'm sorry but I can see no reference of what you want me to erase, can you please provide more informations?". No answers and 3 days later I was banned from Google Ads.
Twist : My website was in multiple language and the page they sent me was in a different language, I had not think of that.
Twist : My website was in multiple language and the page they sent me was in a different language, I had not think of that.
It's a cop-out to call Google an engineering company like they are still the small company that is just a search engine.
If they want to be a consumer electronics company, they should probably start acting like one and have actual humans deal with these problems.
If they want to be a consumer electronics company, they should probably start acting like one and have actual humans deal with these problems.
Can you imagine how much we would accept google into our lives if they had an equal amount of engineering, but awesome customer service?
I've had my own horror stories with Adwords. Google has by far the worst support of any company I've ever had to deal with in my entire life.
Google sucks on this support. This makes me shy away from their phones and buy Samsung's. Which is practically the same hardware anyway, but with a vaguely human company behind it.
Daavid, I really enjoyed your writing! Near the end I laughed out loud. Although, thinking about your experience... I could see how frustrating that could be :)
I agree, with such an experience, Google cars don't seem like a good idea at all.
I agree, with such an experience, Google cars don't seem like a good idea at all.
> 10 weeks of waiting
Absolutely unacceptable. I would have issued a chargeback immediately after three weeks of tardiness. At that point what Google has done is fraud, especially if you couldn't reach an actual person on the phone.
Absolutely unacceptable. I would have issued a chargeback immediately after three weeks of tardiness. At that point what Google has done is fraud, especially if you couldn't reach an actual person on the phone.
It was a pre-order.
Google were out of stock, but their massive load broke their system.
The OP knew this within 2 or 3 days and could have had his money immediately refunded if he wanted to, but most of us were willing to wait.
I for one was on the 8-9 week schedule, and got my phone in week 7, so I was very happy with my purchase.
Google were out of stock, but their massive load broke their system.
The OP knew this within 2 or 3 days and could have had his money immediately refunded if he wanted to, but most of us were willing to wait.
I for one was on the 8-9 week schedule, and got my phone in week 7, so I was very happy with my purchase.
Upvote because Google CS sucks, plain and simple. I've experienced similar troubles with AdSense.
The last two paragraphs are hilarious, thanks for taking the time and writing this! Like anyone else I had my share of ridiculous shipment problems, but this guy remains playful (and cheerful!), wow :)
I ordered an item from Amazon with free 2 day shipping (prime). The tracking never said anything more than that the label had been created. I waited about a week and contacted Amazon. They immediately sent me a free replacement. Eventually the lost package came as well.
This is how customer support should handle this type of situation.
This is how customer support should handle this type of situation.
Amazon are amazing and have figured out how to scale customer service and satisfaction. Most large companies can take a note of out their notebook for handling customers
I wonder how this fits into Australian Consumer Law (ACL) [0]. We have a relatively robust set of rules that govern how a business selling a product/service interacts with their customers.
For example, if you purchase something and it is not as described, or it is faulty, or certain other conditions then the business must be able to remedy the situation. I fail to see how you could satisfactorily comply with the ACL if you're only form of customer service is AI bots.
[0] http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/ (overview at http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/963190)
For example, if you purchase something and it is not as described, or it is faulty, or certain other conditions then the business must be able to remedy the situation. I fail to see how you could satisfactorily comply with the ACL if you're only form of customer service is AI bots.
[0] http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/ (overview at http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/963190)
One point I haven't seen anyone discuss yet in the comments below: the author mentions that, after seeing that the phone was sold out, he kept refreshing the browser till he got a copy of the webpage that allowed him to buy the phone.
I'm wondering if perhaps that copy of the webpage was an out-of-date cached page from a server that hadn't been updated recently enough (or that the page was created based on a copy of data in a cache that hadn't been updated recently enough) and that buying from such a page somehow led to a phantom purchase being created -- since there were no actual phones left to buy -- which got pushed through the system to the point of creating a UPS record for a non-existent phone.
Obviously, one would hope an ecommerce system would catch issues like that so spurious purchases would not be allowed through in the end, but -- in any case -- should the buyer perhaps have realized (in retrospect, at least, if not at the time) that there might be a problem if all his previous attempts to load the webpage were telling him the phone was sold out?
I'm wondering if perhaps that copy of the webpage was an out-of-date cached page from a server that hadn't been updated recently enough (or that the page was created based on a copy of data in a cache that hadn't been updated recently enough) and that buying from such a page somehow led to a phantom purchase being created -- since there were no actual phones left to buy -- which got pushed through the system to the point of creating a UPS record for a non-existent phone.
Obviously, one would hope an ecommerce system would catch issues like that so spurious purchases would not be allowed through in the end, but -- in any case -- should the buyer perhaps have realized (in retrospect, at least, if not at the time) that there might be a problem if all his previous attempts to load the webpage were telling him the phone was sold out?
Why should a user "know" they got a cached page and not that more phones came up for sale? How could you possibly spin this as somehow being the users fault for not "knowing"?
Perhaps because I've had my own odd experiences with online and offline commerce, as well as having read about others' on FatWallet.com, I may tend to see red flags where others don't.
For example, in my experience, online inventory doesn't typically get updated very quickly. So, seeing inventory suddenly show up for a sold-out item as I was rapidly refreshing, I think, might trigger my spidey-sense but perhaps other people might not think this way.
In any case, my comments aren't meant to excuse any poor customer service, or any other issues, on the vendor's end and I hope the author's case is resolved to his satisfaction.
For example, in my experience, online inventory doesn't typically get updated very quickly. So, seeing inventory suddenly show up for a sold-out item as I was rapidly refreshing, I think, might trigger my spidey-sense but perhaps other people might not think this way.
In any case, my comments aren't meant to excuse any poor customer service, or any other issues, on the vendor's end and I hope the author's case is resolved to his satisfaction.
Yes, he isn't the only one.
There were thousands like him, and we were (within a day or two) told that our orders were actually pre-orders, and we were given specific delivery timeframes (2-4 weeks, 3-4 weeks... 8-9 weeks)
At any time after this point, one could simply cancel their orders. Many did so.
Once it was realised that orders weren't being shipping in order of placement, many placed new orders (canceling the second once one was delivered).
Folks here are making this out to be par for the course, but this was a very specific messup, and shouldn't be taken as the usual Google Play purchase experience. Google and/or LG severely underestimated how popular the phone would be, and that was their biggest mistake.
There were thousands like him, and we were (within a day or two) told that our orders were actually pre-orders, and we were given specific delivery timeframes (2-4 weeks, 3-4 weeks... 8-9 weeks)
At any time after this point, one could simply cancel their orders. Many did so.
Once it was realised that orders weren't being shipping in order of placement, many placed new orders (canceling the second once one was delivered).
Folks here are making this out to be par for the course, but this was a very specific messup, and shouldn't be taken as the usual Google Play purchase experience. Google and/or LG severely underestimated how popular the phone would be, and that was their biggest mistake.
Google sucks at customer support, news at 11.
Honestly reading this, nothing surprised me. We all know Google is incapable of decent customer support, and even if we do pay money for something like a phone, the very corporate nature that reigns in this company still sees us as products of free services. Here's a thought, instead of hiring outsourced help for their Nexus sales crew, why not use their AdWords support staff? Those people are obviously the only ones trained to deal with humans.
Honestly reading this, nothing surprised me. We all know Google is incapable of decent customer support, and even if we do pay money for something like a phone, the very corporate nature that reigns in this company still sees us as products of free services. Here's a thought, instead of hiring outsourced help for their Nexus sales crew, why not use their AdWords support staff? Those people are obviously the only ones trained to deal with humans.
If you're parting with hard earned cash to buy something, there's no reason you can't expect good customer service from the seller, even if some of their service is automated. They really need to take some lessons from Amazon.
UPS has just delivered my Nexus 4 today here in BC, Canada. I shouldn't have rewarded Google with my business but there is really no competition for this product. If there was I would have taken my business there.
But this writing reeks of Microsoft astroturfing. Especially the "I got #googleplayed" dig which sounds just like their "Don't get scroogled" campaign and failed #droidrage stunt. It's not like Mark Penn would have any trouble bringing back their famous astroturfing policies to earn his keep at MS.