zlacker

> anyone doing business with you

If they did this, how would you prevent people from saying that is unfair, or making it seem like it is pay to play, or something like that?

Disclaimer: Work at Google (far from this space); opinions are my own.

>>deadmu+(OP)
It's SUPPOSED TO BE pay-to-play. Google is a business. That's how businesses work. That's the entire point.

>>PixyMi+J6
Exactly. I pay for internet, water and power - I happily pay for my Google account if that means I'm treated as a customer.

In fact, you can pay for your Google account with Google One, and I do, but it may or may not stop The Machine from accidentally banning my account.

>>deadmu+(OP)
It is unfair from a consumer standpoint, but at least it would avoid Google's self-dug grave from getting deeper.

From a B2B standpoint, it's just the name of the game. If a partner business is a strategic asset, you fast-track them. Imagine an advertising firm treating a multi-national corporation at the same (crappy) level as a small, family-owned company. Or, imagine Microsoft treating the US government and an ordinary Windows user alike. That's bonkers, and yet it's an apt description of how Google does business right now.

>>lima+Va
Good point! I also subscribe to Google One; does that in any kind of fashion lower the chances of being hit by an auto ban?

>>deadmu+(OP)
> If they did this, how would you prevent people from saying that is unfair, or making it seem like it is pay to play, or something like that?

You can't please everyone; here is how I would frame it.

Stadia developers and business partners receive Enterprise Support.

It's absurd that they aren't already doing something like this.

>>sundvo+sK
I would hope so, it would certainly be a "probably legit" signal. I'm annoyed I have to consider the possibility at all.