Last night we reported that Google had stripped all references and links to the free version of Google Apps from the landing page for the product. New users had just one option – to sign up for the Premier version and pay $50 per user per year after a 14 day free trial.
Google responded, saying “In experimenting with a number of different landing page layouts, the link to Standard Edition was inadvertently dropped from one of the variations. We are in the process of restoring it and you should see it soon. We have no intention of eliminating Google Apps Standard Edition, and are sorry for the confusion.”
Translation: they are trying to get more users to pay by making the Standard version harder to find. In that they succeeded brilliantly, but were obviously a little overzealous in hiding it.
Google just emailed to say that a link to the Standard version has been added back to the landing page. And they reiterate that they have no plans to kill the product, they’ll just make users play a version of Where’s Waldo to find it. (Ok, they didn’t really say that last part about Waldo).
It was hidden for quite a while… I don’t know how long they were “experimenting” with the landing page, but I’m glad someone with a loud enough megaphone called them out.
I agree…it’s been gone for about 2 weeks and I had to dig to find it. clever. glad they brought it back
Much longer than two weeks. I signed up a domain a few months ago and had to do the hoop jumping routine.
agreed, this was way longer than 2 weeks. i tried to find it for a client approximately two months ago and I could not find it for the life of me. What sucks is that he actually ended up paying money elsewhere.
We just assumed they got rid of the free option and I missed the headline but yeah, this was sketchy. The fact that they changed it after the story makes it even moreso. For that important a product at that big an organization, it seeems like a strange mistake or experiment. Seems much more like an attempt to channel customers unknowing of the free product into the paid option, at least until someone noticed.
Nice job, Michael.
What this really mean, in the near future for sure google will start charging and eliminating it
+1. i wonder if “Don’t be evil” was google’s punch line? Looks like Google is use to making blunders these dayz…and that too loads and loads of them.
I don’t have much of a problem with them driving people to the for pay version. I have forked over the small payment for the premiere version for a while now, just to make sure they don’t scrap the whole thing as part of a budget cut.
i agree
standard A/B testing to please management… since when is it illegal to make a buck for a great service? or do we want more flash ads???
Before blaming Google, people should run the free accounts themselves to see how much it costs.
Google trying to earn some money other apps like Adsense.
I have to say, i think this is ridiculous, TechCrunch. The fault is yours. You jumped on a story and tried to make a headline out of it. You ran with a story that seemed to confirm (while you had no confirmation) Standard had been ended. It was a simple mistake, Google apologizes. Split testing happens all the time.
“Translation: they are trying to get more users to pay by making the Standard version harder to find. In that they succeeded brilliantly, but were obviously a little overzealous in hiding it.”
I think more likely TechCrunch ran a little TOO hard with a story, and you now have your tail between your legs, so you’re making Google the bad guy.
I love TechCrunch, you guys are great, but you blew this “story.”
I was clear in the initial post that the links for standard were still up, and in fact linked to them.
On your quote in the second paragraph, that is exactly what happened. exactly. An email from a Googler: “I know I’m getting to this late and there’s already been a thread, but the short version is we aren’t killing it, we screwed up in making it hard to find, and we’re fixing it.”
My tail is wagging happily. The link has been restored. Google isn’t a bad guy at all. But this was most certainly a story.
Sorry, I think you’re wrong. Here was the lead-off for your story:
“The free version of Google Apps is history. The current sign up page makes no mention of the previously free Standard edition. Instead, new users get a 14 day free trial, and then must pay $50 per user per year after that trial.”
I think that’s very different from something like:
“Google has removed a link to the free edition. We are awaiting confirmation from Google to see if this was intentional or a mistake.”
Your version was – incorrectly – much more alarmist than the truth of the situation. And your linking to it made it seem more like a “workaround” to subvert Google’s intensions, not proof that the omission was an accident.
You never win a fight over “tone” with a journalist – or a blogger – but I must protest still, despite my respect for this site.
Your indignance is misplaced, TC is predicated on histrionics. “Not journalists,” remember?
The standard link will stay in place until the Google monopoly has enough pricing power to make us all pay. As long as they’re kind enough to leave search free, I guess I won’t complain.
Michael, do you know if Google is planning on bringing Google Voice to the App world??
Brilliant. What if… Google silently conceals the link, waiting until a blogger picks up on it, the web goes into hysteria mode, generating publicity, then Google says “oh wait, we forgot that link, here it is again…”
I’m not saying this is the case, but when Google sneezes, it’s global news.
It great you pointed out that the link was missing. This really confused the heck out of me too when I was trying to set a friend up.
Google said they did not intend to confuse. I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Now.. I’d love to see you cover Paypal and all their deceptive practices. They are extremely sneaky when it comes to ‘persuading’ users to use their bank account (instead of their credit card) to pay. They also changed their fee structure depending upon what kind of payment (personal, business) is being made and nothing on the site explained this. Imagine how much they have made from tricking people into using their bank account or charging recipients even when the account is a Personal one.
They’ve been making it harder and harder to find for a while now. Kind of annoying, but I think I would do the same
I remember that ever since you posted http://www.tech...e-on-free-apps/, every time I’ve signed a domain up for Google Apps it’s been very Where’s Waldo-y to find the free version. But, thanks to that post, I knew it was there to find somewhere if I kept hunting. I quite like free Google Apps.
By the way, French TC readers, Where’s Waldo? is Ou est Charlie?: http://img139.i...lzzzzzzztj6.jpg
Didn’t want you to feel left out
You did link to the free version. You also asserted “The free version of Google Apps is history.” and “they just killed the Standard product entirely”: both statements turn out to be completely unfounded. The only “story” here was an HTML layout error. But you ran with that and speculated a whole product shift and published it at 1am without waiting for comment from Google first. And the result is you’ve misled your readers.
how did i mislead readers when i said “You can actually still see the free version at this page. But it doesn’t appear to be linked to from any Google page at this point. We’re emailing Google for comment.”?
Seems pretty straightforward to me. The product was removed from the landing page where user sign up. Since you could only find the link if you already knew about it, they did in fact kill the product, if only temporarily until we pointed it out.
And it certainly wasn’t an html layout error. It was a removal of the links to see how conversions to paid went.
Go kick a cat or something. You’ll feel better afterwards.
Do you have confirmation that “It was a removal of the links to see how conversions to paid went”? The source you quote from Google said something different.
well, yeah. my comment way above: “I know I’m getting to this late and there’s already been a thread, but the short version is we aren’t killing it, we screwed up in making it hard to find, and we’re fixing it.”
Actually, it was linked from a google page, just not the home landing page. I signed up for the ‘free” version last week and had to dig around for it, but i found the link. Your story & headline were a bit over the top.
Seriously, a HTML layout error? Don’t be stupid.
Not so easy to find the download link for the free version of AVG antivirus, either
The idea that Google “accidentally” dropped a link doesn’t fly with me. We’ve all heard tell of the maniacal testing before any change, however minor, is allowed to go live. The fiasco surrounding Douglas Bowman’s departure is a great example.
I am just thinking if they will be putting Google Wave in their premimum app account and charge for it.. I am seriously awaiting for WAVE…
Wave is an open source protocol/platform, from the demo it appeared you could get a google apps level product and modify and install on your own server, much better
I would gladly pay $50 a year if I could have multiple accounts on multiple domains.
I run a handful of sites that all have the standard same address, i.e. info/service/help@domain.com. Problem is if you want to keep all of the actual domain.com parts separate, you have to create an apps account for each domain.
They solve that and I can have 1 account, then I will give them my $50. As it is now I have 7 or so app accounts with 1-4 e-mails per account.
actually, you can seperate using 1 apps account. The trick is to point everything in each domain to google apps, but point the @ record to different hosting accounts. You do need full DNS access to get this done though. Google has excellent docs on how to do this.
Let’s just hope they add “don’t be silly” to their mission statement.
Thank you for your benevolent bull horn of tough love [tm].
I’ve recommended the free version countless times to folks (even the other day on that Aardvark thing). It’s nice to know I don’t have to put in the qualifying “if you only signed up last week” on the end of the recommendation.
Why do people still have such an issue with Google Apps as an option?
Seriously.
Uncool of Google to change things without saying much, even if their terms of service allows it, which it might. However, $50/year for businesses is pretty reasonable for what Google Apps offers. Maybe they decided their ad revenue can’t cross-subsidize everything. I’ve been working on a related approach that might be of interest.
I decided I needed to charge some minimal fee for access to my creativity and innovation website ProxThink.com. But for a variety of reasons, I settled on a more hybrid approach. For $4.95 per year people can access the standard features, with some ads on pages. For $5 more, they get the option to turn ads off. There is another level with more features for $19.95 per year. Also, and this is critical, with each plan, we ask people to proxri based on their use, benefits and the proximity. A proxri might be described as a systems-thinking version of a tip, commission, contribution, thank you or bonus. It’s a way of working with the idea that if you take care of the neighborhood, or network, the neighborhood or network will take care of you. “Proxri” stands for ProxReward, and it is a reward which relates elements in the proximity. The essence of our Proxri Deal is “As you find our relationship rewarding, proxri with the proximity in mind.” It also might be a new way to think about and work with the gift economy.
The ground is constantly shifting beneath our feet. I think networks may shift the emphasis from individual people, companies and governments, to the proximity, and proximities. The proximity consists of elements related or potentially related to a situation, in physical, mental and other ways. It’s a way of taking greater account of environments and contexts. As networks continue to change our lives, I think we need to be open to new ways of doing things, including things which are hybrids, or seem to be at first. I developed the ProxThink Growth Model approach, including proxri, with the idea that it would be robust enough to be the basis of some new standards. People are welcome to adopt and adapt it. In particular, I think it might have potential for the collaborative Web 2.0 world, and fit into some of the developments that Kevin Kelly discusses in his recent Wired piece on the New Socialism.
maybe Mike Arrington should charge for spam posts.
And maybe he should charge double for boring one’s like this.
^_^
I was surprised by the other post about this, since I registered a second apps account 3 weeks ago. It was hard to find then as well, but during signup you could still choose it.
All the recent Google announcements have got me thinking that Google is consolidating its estate into an end-to-end service offering for mid-tier businesses. I think Tufan Tunc is right, Google are looking to sweat their assets into additional revenue streams. And why shouldn’t they? There’s nothing wrong with it.
I wrote a blog post about it here – http://daverein...oft-for-google/
The link is still not available to 90% of the users (Those who don’t chose English/US on the top right)