Most common reason given is that Google uses automation a lot and their support staff is reduced. I'm baffled by this. Is it really that expensive for a company the size of Google to hire and train, say, 1-10 thousand support people and have the greatest customer satisfaction in the industry?
I have a hard time believing this is some penny counting accountant making the decisions. It sure must be more complex than that.
Thoughts?
I needed to contact Pixel support and the phone and text buttons were grayed out for a week and the support funnel redirected to the forum where random people pretend to be Google experts. They later put up a banner that said there would be delays due to their CS location having a monsoon or something. I can't imagine Apple leaving people stuck like that.
It doesn't matter if Google works terribly as long as that fact doesn't make the news. And it's Google who decides what becomes your news.
It's not about the money, it's their philosophy. Google has one of the worst (if not the worst) customer service support in the IT world. Just because of that, I don't use any Google product if I have the chance to use alternatives.
So, aside from what others have replied, what would be the purpose of hiring 1-10 thousand support people that would have no ability to actually help the customer contacting them?
"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" would be the only response they could offer.
How much money does that translate to? They're still getting users, and lots of them. They're being paid in service fees, ad fees and data.
It's not a question of how expensive the 10k people + training + HR + management structure +... is, but whether it brings more money than it costs.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-cloud-layoffs-support...
Also, slippery slope fallacy at play I suspect