Wanting to make things better really isn't enough. You need to be able to make it happen. Writing a blog post to the world from your limited experience that a particular company has problems is cute and probably feels good, but not really helpful to fixing the problem. If he actually explained what he would do to make things better, that would be a start.
What are we actually talking about when discussing "good support" and "bad support"? Is it just someone nice to talk to whilst someone else fixes a problem for you? There was an interesting article along these lines by the former President of Enterprise at Google written recently: http://gigaom.com/2013/01/26/the-delusions-that-companies-ha...
In this case, the GAE feature that underlies this issue is the Master/Slave (MS) datastore. It's been deprecated for ages in favour of the High-Replication Datastore (HRD).
Maybe you don't rationally need someone to talk to when someone is fixing a problem for you -- but I think you need to know that the vendor is _aware_ of the problem, and is working on fixing it.
Or you start freaking out. And I don't think that's entirely irrational.
This is, among other things, why the 'post mortem' has become somewhat popular -- because it allows us to judge "Yeah, those guys DO know what they're doing, they're on top of things, the chances of outages are getting constantly smaller, not larger."
Has Google ever published such a "post-mortem" after an outage? Has Google ever even admitted there was an outage publically?
But also, yeah, rational or not, people like to have someone to talk to. In customer service in general, there are many studies showing that customers satisfaction will be higher when they are treated 'nicely' _without a solution_ than when they are treated brusquely but their problem is solved. This is not actually rational, and I'm not saying I'd like vendors to strive towards that model -- but it is apparently human psychology that vendors may want to take account of.
On the other hand, Google seems to be doing pretty fine how it is going. Although I don't know how GAE is doing, really, compared to competitors.
How Google does it, though, is basically no support at all, right? It's beyond 'good support' or 'bad support' -- with the possible exception of AdWords, is there any Google product where you can ever talk to a human about any support issue at all? For email that might be fine, especially when the email product is pretty darn reliable. For enterprise critical software... it would sure make me nervous.
He falls in to a trap of knowing machine behavior, but not dealing with people behavior.
Insanity #2: I need somebody to talk to when a service interruption occurs
You hear about an earthquake in California, you call your aunt to make sure she is ok.
You are getting bad weather in the area you live, your mom calls and checks on you.
The server you use disappears off the internet and your providers status page hasn't been updated for a week, you '...'?
When something goes wrong, it's not an event that effects everybody (even if it is), it's an event that effects you. As long as humans are still involved in the purchasing and managing of servers you'll always need someone to call and yell at/be soothed by.
That's true. I think that his broader point still stands, though. Once you get beyond variants of "are you working on it or do I need to convince you to?" the role of support is basically catering to irrational desires.
I've found the whole rubyist community to be somewhat hateful towards any other languages. It makes it hard to want to use the language when the suggestions I get on my "gems" are "that's not ruby-enough of a name" or "You need to break out of your python mode, your name isn't clever enough" :P