from what i understand of the definition of "customer", a "customer" means "someone who is paying for a service".
The law isn't even talking about customers. The term is "Verbraucher" which is better translated as consumer.
The judge explicitly stated that the law in question does apply to non-paying users.
The users have not in fact brought any custom to google. They're receiving a free good or service and should not be entitled to anything.
German law disagrees.
No! Communication *can* be two or one way. It is two way in this case.
The judge ruled that Googles automated reply does not count as communication in this case.
Feel free to argue with him.
Alternatively since that fine is so small in Google terms, if it's a one-off, maybe they should just pay it and carry on. I wonder how long it would take for further action to result if they did that.
Err... it is €250,000 per case. That is, every single automated reply could cost them €250,000.
Also it says "alternatively 6 month of jail time for a member of the board". The next ruling might skip the fine
Answers derived from the actual ruling. (Translate yourself if you don't believe me.
Is a web site visitor a customer?
If they used some Google service, then yes.
Or does some form of payment for services need to be made?
No.
What about android users, does having an android device make someone a customer or would google need to sell the OS for that to count?
If it's only about the OS, I think the seller would be the only one the user has a business relationship with. But since almost any Android device includes Google services - yes, I think practically every Android user is a customer of Google in the legal sense.
It sounds like the Judge ruled that any person who uses a google service is a customer even if that service is free.
Yes.
It seems like that is a win for the consumer, but I have to wonder if that was the correct decision in this case. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to need to be a paying customer for a company to expend resources to adequately respond to your communications. Some questions can cause hours of follow up work to send a reply.
If Google decides to discontinue all Google services in Germany as a result, would that really be a "win" for the German consumer?
You are of course free to argue about the merit of the law. But the ruling is "correct" in the legal sense.
Personally, I think Google is making a shitload of money in Germany and they should be able to use some of that to talk to their customers. They would be unbelievably stupid to shut down operations here just to save the cost of paying a few people to actually respond to email.
The general public can't. But that's because they aren't customers, they are the content.
The ruling states that Google users are, indeed, customers of Google in the legal sense.
They'll just change their automated reply to "Thank you for your issue/concern. We'll look into it and get back to you if necessary."
That's actually possible.
But after this ruling I'd expect the consumer protection agency to follow up and check if anyone gets any response to their questions. If not, they'll sue Google again. And of course, in case this happens and the court decides that Google did not do what they were told, the next fine will be substantially higher.
I think it would be better - and in the end probably cheaper - for Google, to just hire some personnel who actually read and answer customer mail.
That the German Goverment should also respond to ALL emails,
No. There is no requirement that a company has to respond to all email. But it has to be possible to contact them via email. Responding with an automated mail, saying that email does not get read at all is not allowed.
Someone posted a link to the ruling above. You can read the exact reasoning there. I'm too lazy to translate it all.
Why hasn't Google given Microsoft the coup de grace and actively developed some desktop/laptop distro ala Chromebook but without the stupid "web only" focus?
Because that wouldn't help them. Google is all about ads. They developed Android only because they were afraid they would be locked out of the emerging mobile systems.
There is no sign that desktop operating systems try to get rid of the browser. The only way to sell more ads on the desktop is to make the browser the OS. Which is exactly what Chrome does.
Where's the sense in whitelisting a few applications and then go "but you may run the others too"? Where's the sense in that?
That's exactly how it works in OS X today. And I think it's a very good solution.
As others have said; Final Fantasy XIV.
No Mac client. No sale.
Guess I'll keep playing WoW.
Won't run on my Mac.
No Mac version. So that's out.
Apple has never really addressed patches or pre notifications of updates or security fixes.
RSS is how I get my news.
You don't offer a RSS feed? I'm not going to regularly visit your site.
Fortunately, every site I've ever been interested in offers at least one feed.
BLISS is ignorance.
