> The fact that you give something away at no charge (but actually make money or even if you don't make money) is not a reason you can then walk away and not have any responsibility at all for anything and everything. (Or shouldn't be).
I'm very sympathetic to OP's situation, I have also lost an account with years of irreplaceable emails to Google's finicky algorithms. But this right here is a slippery slope I would never wish for. Offering a free product should absolutely not entitle any random user to any kind of support. I should be able to release a product (whether open-source, free, or paid) and decide for myself and my business the level of support I want to provide, without an obligation to respond to everyone, or maintain it forever.
It really sucks that Google's business plan is totally cool with leaving some of us behind, but I'd rather take the risk that comes with the territory rather than not see these products get created in the first place due to onerous obligations.
> > The fact that you give something away at no charge (but actually make money or even if you don't make money) is not a reason you can then walk away and not have any responsibility at all for anything and everything. (Or shouldn't be).
> I'm very sympathetic to OP's situation, I have also lost an account with years of irreplaceable emails to Google's finicky algorithms. But this right here is a slippery slope I would never wish for. Offering a free product should absolutely not entitle any random user to any kind of support. I should be able to release a product (whether open-source, free, or paid) and decide for myself and my business the level of support I want to provide, without an obligation to respond to everyone, or maintain it forever.
I argue there is a big difference between giving something away as open source and giving something away and indirectly making money through e.g. advertising. For example if there are two game companies one makes a game that you have to pay for to play and the other makes money through in game ads, should they both not give the same support for their games? The users pay for them just in different ways.
> I argue there is a big difference between giving something away as open source and giving something away and indirectly making money through e.g. advertising.
True. But OP's reply misses the point which is 'causes pain'.
> Offering a free product should absolutely not entitle any random user to any kind of support.
Quibble they aren't offering free 'products' they are offering free services. Offering free products is a anti-trust violation commonly referred to as dumping. Proper thing to do is extend antitrust to services.
If Google just offered no support for their free products, that would be one thing that might be a little understandable. But they even treat their customers for their paid products this way.
I'm very sympathetic to OP's situation, I have also lost an account with years of irreplaceable emails to Google's finicky algorithms. But this right here is a slippery slope I would never wish for. Offering a free product should absolutely not entitle any random user to any kind of support. I should be able to release a product (whether open-source, free, or paid) and decide for myself and my business the level of support I want to provide, without an obligation to respond to everyone, or maintain it forever.
It really sucks that Google's business plan is totally cool with leaving some of us behind, but I'd rather take the risk that comes with the territory rather than not see these products get created in the first place due to onerous obligations.