Disclaimer:

Even though the title says “my”, this is not my blogpost.

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    That’s not better. It is not OK to have a phone number published that is not monitored regularly, no matter what message you leave when they call it.

    You should have a legitimate contact method, but it is not acceptable behavior to publish a contact method that isn’t handled appropriately. Publishing a number that always goes to voice mail is already really bad.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        No shit?

        Which is why requiring a number isn’t OK. But the minute you make a phone number available to customers, it cannot be acceptable not to treat it like a phone number.

        iPhone already has a lot of apps that aren’t worth the effort to make available for Android, and this is going to make that meaningfully worse.

        • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          How about you post your phone number here? It seems you have no problem in sharing someone share their number in public, and I hope you put the same srandard to yourself.

            • kboy101222@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              So what exactly is wrong with making the voice mail say “I will never check this. Email me at [email protected] if you want help”? If the requirement is bullshit, why shouldn’t people comply maliciously? As long as there’s some way to contact the dev (like through email), who gives a rats ass if the phone number doesn’t work? I don’t need to call Lawrence Dawson cause Sync is having issues. I can post on the sub or probably find an email somewhere. It’s not gonna be instant like a phone call, but it doesn’t need to be.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                2 months ago

                Because it’s lying to your customer to have a phone number you don’t use listed. Listing a number is an advertisement that you offer phone support.

                • Blooper@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I legit can’t tell if this person is a really good troll or if they’re talking in circles and haven’t figured that out yet.

            • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Okay, I missed read and I apologize. However, you’re just trolling. You disagree the phone requirement. Yet when others propose alternative solutions that direct uses to an equally direct communication method, you oppose that too without providing any alternatives.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                The alternative is to not list a phone number and to abandon Google until they remove the requirement.

                Listing a phone number you won’t answer is lying to your customers.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s no different than companies like Microsoft, you have their phone number that’s a literal support line that says hey go to the website sometimes without even indicating where on the website that you go to.

      I ran into that twice while dealing with an activation issue and a hardware purchase issue last year, their phone support will lead you in circles until eventually you hit a voicemail that says please go to this page. In one case it gave the location, in the other it said “this support is available on the Microsoft store website at” and it just gave you the store launchpage for ms store

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        “I’m only as much of a piece of shit as Microsoft” isn’t a good defense.

        There is no possible scenario where publicizing an invalid contact method is defensible behavior.

        • Pika@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Honestly it just depends on the definition of invalid, it’s still giving you information on where you need to go so it still gives you more information than when you started it’s not like it just leaves you to a dead end number, now what some other people were proposing which is a virtual number and then just toss the phone after that I don’t agree with. Nor do I agree with a number that doesn’t give any info aside from just hanging up or endlessly ringing