Google’s decision to pull the plug on its VPN by Google One service paints a picture of a feature that failed to take off. The company claims “people simply weren’t using it” as the justification, but that rings hollow when you consider the bigger picture. Could the VPN’s limited global availability be the true reason behind the low user numbers?
While Google is right that the VPN wasn’t widely embraced, focusing solely on user preference seems shortsighted. It’s worth exploring whether the feature’s limited availability and functionality played a larger role in its perceived lack of popularity.
Let’s start with the obvious: geography. VPN by Google One was only available in a select number of countries, leaving vast swathes of Google One’s global user base out in the cold. This is particularly frustrating for those of us in regions like Kenya, Africa, and Asia where we subscribe to Google One but cannot access the full suite of advertised benefits. It’s a scenario akin to buying a car but being told you can only drive it in specific neighborhoods.
When a vast portion of your paying customers can’t even access a specific feature, it’s no wonder that usage statistics would look bleak. Imagine the frustration of those in Kenya, and other regions around the world, who subscribe to Google One expecting the full range of benefits, only to be met with the ‘not available in your country’ message when it comes to the VPN. Google’s decision to restrict its VPN service to a select few countries created an artificial bottleneck for adoption. Granted, it’s unfair to judge the entire product’s popularity based on a user base that was geographically restricted from the start. This feels like putting the cart before the horse — of course it wasn’t widely used when so many people couldn’t even use it!
To claim that people simply weren’t interested without addressing this major limitation is a disservice to Google One subscribers all over the world. It’s entirely possible that with broader availability, the VPN would have gained far more traction. Moreover, some of the technical hiccups reported by users highlight potential design flaws. If the VPN interferes with essential features like Android Auto, it creates a frustrating user experience. People don’t like disabling security features just to connect their phones to their cars. This kind of friction undermines the core purpose of the VPN — a seamless, secure online experience.
Then there’s the often-overlooked yet crucial factor: what people use VPNs for. Many Kenyans that I know use VPNs rely on them for location spoofing to access a wider range of content on streaming services like Netflix. The inability of VPN by Google One to change location turned it from a potentially powerful tool to a niche offering with reduced appeal. Even if Google managed to bring it to Kenya, this location limitation would have put off a significant number of people around here.
Now, I’m not saying Google was wrong to pull the plug. Perhaps the resources required to make this VPN truly universal didn’t align with their overall strategy. But to simply claim low usage without acknowledging the limitations of the rollout feels disingenuous. It’s difficult to wholeheartedly endorse a product that, for many, was not fully functional or even accessible in the first place.
Perhaps VPN by Google One was simply ahead of its time, hampered by a cautious launch strategy. Or maybe it serves as a reminder that even tech giants can misstep when trying to balance global reach with feature execution. Hopefully Google learns from this experience and takes a bolder approach when addressing privacy and security for its international user base in the future.
