“Google can spend $X staffing support lines for Gmail, or it can spend that money on developing features and bugfixes.”
Or it can do both, because its budget is basically unlimited. Besides, you can't create features or bugfixes simply by adding more developers to a project. If that were true, Apple would be hiring developers by the truck load. Instead, they work with small teams, even though the company is raking in cash.
“Google support would have to be high-skilled and expensive.”
Let's compare Google with IBM, which has 470,000 employees. I would say that many of those employees are highly skilled and expensive. IBM has twice as much revenue as Google, makes more profit than Google, while employing ten times as many people.
A lot of IBM's employees are consultants. They are not cost centers for IBM, they are revenue/profit centers.
Each consultant employee that IBM hires adds to their revenue and profit.
Adding call center employees to google would not add to revenue or profit unless they had some method of allowing them to capture more rev. Adding purely customer support people would not benefit google.
By that reasoning, nobody should have customer support. Yet people do, because burning your customers is not a sustainable business practice. Support is not a profit center, but in the long term profits go down without it. If people's only loyalty to Google is that their service is free, they won't be hard to woo away.
I am talking about Google specifically rather than a hypothetical company that may need phone support to keep their customers.
If people's only loyalty to Google is that their service is free, they won't be hard to woo away.
People's other loyalty to google is that their service works pretty much perfectly. There is no free or even cost based product that I know of that beats gmail, google maps, google docs.
Before you list a bunch of startups no one outside of the tech community has heard of, remember that in order for the public to know about these products, those companies have to pay google to advertise. In addition to having to offer an insanely superior service, anyone entering the field must also know how to monetize which is challenging.
If a true competitor arises, they can be acquihired and integrated in to google which further limits google's need to spend millions of dollars a year on call centers.
>> you can't create features or bugfixes simply by adding more developers to a project.
Sure. But you can spin up new projects - Google Glass, Google Fiber, etc etc, by spending your money building new teams instead of supporting existing products.
Again, I'm not saying they're right, but there is certainly an opportunity cost to providing support.
>> its budget is basically unlimited
Nobody's budget is unlimited. If nothing else, Google answers to shareholders.
Or it can do both, because its budget is basically unlimited. Besides, you can't create features or bugfixes simply by adding more developers to a project. If that were true, Apple would be hiring developers by the truck load. Instead, they work with small teams, even though the company is raking in cash.
“Google support would have to be high-skilled and expensive.”
Let's compare Google with IBM, which has 470,000 employees. I would say that many of those employees are highly skilled and expensive. IBM has twice as much revenue as Google, makes more profit than Google, while employing ten times as many people.