Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in this case, that amount is an order of magnitude lower that what the service cost to provide. It seems odd that after underpaying by a lot for a long time, that the user would complain that they were given 2 months of free service and then 5 more months of read-only access to get their stuff off. Sure, Google should have communicated more clearly but Burke's expectations here are also entirely unreasonable. The…
I think the point is Google could have communicated more clearly, and we shouldn't understate that. You don't give a business (since this was an enterprise account) a week to take action. That's unacceptable. A large business may need a week just to get the paperwork ready for the employee to start the migration. This is a common problem and it has screwed over many other people. we can't just leave livlihoods to the…
Agreed. It's always better to make things as clear as possible for the slow and deliberately obtuse. However, that doesn't excuse the user here from having completely unreasonable expectations.
> You don't give a business (since this was an enterprise account) a week to take action. That's unacceptable.
They were given over half a year and did nothing.
> we can't just leave livlihoods to the whimsy of automated bots without some human to contact.
I agree and support a law that creates a standardized dispute/appeal process for customers of large companies. I don't think that would have directly helped in this case as no such system should force a company to continue offer a product at a loss or offer more than 6 months of migration time. Perhaps the threat of appeals through such a system would have incentivized clearer communication though