That's more than most places offer.
I mainly care about Google Docs and Sheets, they're exported as Word and Excel (and there are other options if you don't like this formats), and the random sample of docs I tried in the output worked fine in Word and Excel.
Does it not provide the data?
Google at least lets me back things up.
Most services do not allow it at all.
So there's no restoring anywhere else at all, no chance.
Having the data I could at least have a chance that some service might offer a rebuilt import option to pick up those google users ... or I could build it myself / at least have the information.
To me that's still leaps and bounds better than any other options that I know of.
For all other companies, at least if you are in the EU, you should he able to request the data by eg email and they are obliged to send it. You just don't know what format you'll get.
As for all other companies they might be obliged to send it, but I don't see many ways to do so.
That still make's google's method way better IMO.
Google Voice exports your texts into a clumsy pile of HTML files. That's why I wrote a parser to convert all of your Google Voice messages into structured data.
And while there of course are no guarantees, I at least would expect fair warning before stuff like docs is killed.
I also don't think your doomsday scenario makes much sense either. What do you mean "lifted their hands" and why would it happen out of the blue with zero warning? Though I'll repeat: so what?
I don't think a decentralized system is much better in this regard. It just means things rot at a more staggered pace. Service A shuts down on year 0, service B shuts down on year 10, etc. It's just a different trade-off, not the panacea we like to pretend it is.
Since Google's popular products all contribute to making money in the end, they're not going to stop. Shareholders just wouldn't let it happen. There's a chain of accountability here that goes employees > C suite > board > shareholders.
So I don't quite see what situation you're worried about here.
Do you understand how corporate boards work? How large shareholders get their own board seats? How boards hire and fire members of the management team?
The idea of a toothless board is a complete fiction. I don't know where you got the idea, but it couldn't be more wrong.
(Perhaps you're confusing it with boards where a single shareholder has more than 50% of shares, thus making the board largely irrelevant because the shareholder controls it. But even in that case, the CEO effectively reports to that shareholder, and there have been many, many, many cases of underperforming CEO's being fired. It happens all the time.)