zlacker

Or not even an arm of the government. The same reasoning would be applied by other companies buying services. Vendors with a reputation for stopping service to clients because of bad news coverage are a risker bet.

>>iguy+(OP)
That doesn't seem to affect Google much, and we all know how big G loves killing off products.

>>pmille+iR
Have they killed many paid products?

I think there is justified wariness about building too much on top of any service given away for free.

>>iguy+kT
Explain all the businesses built on YouTube, then. YT is "free" to most consumers (paid for by ads), but there are literally people who make their livings as YouTube personalities.

>>pmille+ZW
What's to explain? All the people who chose not to do this, because it didn't seem like a safe enough business model?

>>iguy+i41
Right, they choose to do it on top of a Google-run service they don’t pay for. According to you, this shouldn’t be happening.

>>pmille+O91
No, read it again. According to me, many people are unwilling to build a life on sand, it weighs negatively in their choices. The fact that some are observed to take the gamble proves nothing. (And the fact that some of those got nasty surprises of being de-monetized proves that they should have been concerned.)