Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
My purpose is not to attack you, but I admit to being a little frustrated because the distinction you have made is currently meaningless, and you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid elaborating. Why tell Duckie he is not the customer if it doesn't make any difference? In the context above, you are replying to a quote that said, amongst other things, that Google is good for its customers. The obvious implication of saying Duckie is not a customer is that Google is not good for Duckie or indeed for other "non-customers" of Google's free services. All I am asking is why not?
|
No, the obvious implication of saying Duckie is not the customer is that Google is more focused on pleasing their paying customers. Saying that Google is more focused on their paying customers does not imply that they are bad for everyone else. What you are saying the logical equivalent of saying that If I am good to family members, then I must be bad to everyone else. You don't seem to be willing to accept the idea that I can be good to people outside my family, even though I care more about people inside my family.
Google can be good to non customers, however when choosing between pleasing paying customers and pleasing someone else, they are most likely going to choose to please paying customers. That observation goes quite a way to explain a number of Google's more controversial privacy moves over the years. Google does a good job of reversing those decisions when they get push back, but it explains why they made the initial decision.