Not even remotely true. They regularly shut down products and services with impunity. If Gmail cost more than the data they directly or indirectly mine and sell from their users, Gmail wouldn't exist either.
Not even remotely true. They regularly shut down products and services with impunity. If Gmail cost more than the data they directly or indirectly mine and sell from their users, Gmail wouldn't exist either.
If that ceases to be true, goodbye (free) gmail.
Google has firmly been in the "we're so big we can suck at everything, but you'll still use our stuff because you have no other choice" phase that Microsoft was (is?) in.
They've dominated email so much that their spam filter makes it a very risky proposition to run your own domain; chances are very good it'll just start dropping your messages. Even if chances aren't great, can you take the risk of an important email getting zapped?
To this day I still routinely have to fish out my gmail spam folder dozens of emails from various open source mailing lists that have been around for a decade or two, some hosted on kernel.org, because the spam filter is convinced they're spam. Google is too fucking stupid or lazy to whitelist sites like kernel.org.
FFS even google groups I'm in that are technical get obviously-not-spam messages tagged as spam!
> but it's a more promising path to privacy-preserving digital infrastructure than letting the private market handle it.
The history of governments suggests otherwise.
what could possibly go wrong
> On October 1, 2013, HealthCare.gov was rolled out as planned, despite the concurrent partial government shutdown. The launch was marred by serious technological problems, making it difficult for the public to sign up for health insurance.[4] The deadline to sign up for coverage that would begin January 1, 2014, was December 23, 2013, by which time the problems had largely been fixed. The open enrollment period for 2016 coverage ran from November 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016.[5] State exchanges also have had the same deadlines; their performance has been varied.[6][7][8]
> The design of the website was overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and built by a number of federal contractors, most prominently CGI Inc. of Canada. The original budget for CGI was $93.7 million, but this grew to $292 million prior to launch of the website. While estimates that the overall cost for building the website had reached over $500 million prior to launch[1][9][10][11][12] and in early 2014 HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said there would be "approximately $834 million on Marketplace-related IT contracts and interagency agreements,"[13] the Office of Inspector General released a report in August 2014 finding that the total cost of the HealthCare.gov website had reached $1.7 billion[14] and a month later, including costs beyond "computer systems," Bloomberg News estimated it at $2.1 billion.[15]
Got it. So if you're fighting an obstinate faction that would rather the government not exist than provide services then that can cause issues. Further, contractors will fleece you for everything you're worth. Compare to a successful project like the Post Office that gets pushed through with overwhelming political will and is run directly by a government agency (oddly structured as a government-owned corporation) and then even despite attempts to destroy it it continues to provide good service.
It's not easy; you need someone competent heading it up and setting it up for success. If the Democrats were to propose it in 2028 under president Gavin I would expect it to be a boondoggle. That doesn't change the fact that I want it to be done and done well.
Based on some data I collected around five years ago, roughly 80% of US customers used GMail for personal email. It was overwhelmingly the most common choice. I suspect that number has only drifted upwards since.
(What about the rest? 15% were using Yahoo; the rest were spread thinly across AOL, Microsoft, ISPs, and colleges.)