4 ms·
This is really annoying. I don't and haven't ever used vine, but how much could it really cost to keep hosting it, and let people continue using it? Why can't c
by jackfrodo 10y ago
This is really annoying. I don't and haven't ever used vine, but how much could it really cost to keep hosting it, and let people continue using it? Why can't companies be okay having products that are revenue neutral that make people happy?
- hart_russell 10y agoWho says it was revenue neutral?
- bronson 10y agoRight. Given Twitter's headcount, Vine probably has 550 people working on it.
- thegoodhands 10y agoHosting, computing and bandwidth cost won't be a small thing
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoThose are lots of assumptions about a company burning half a billion dollars a year.
- metellus 10y agoEverything needs maintenance.
- DannyBee 10y agoBecause then people turn around and complain that it's not being improved. Seriously, you can't win here. If you kill it because it costs something and you have no plan to ever keep it going, people complain If you let it live but just "keep it working", people also complain. Additionally, killing it brings certain nice guarantees, like, for example, "you can stop worrying about security bugs, privacy bugs, etc at some point" because it's gone. You can't really just keep stuff working anymore, even in the simple case, new attacks get found that apply to old code, etc. When those things get busted, or bad things happen, people complain about it. As for "why not just put one person on it", there's a multitude of reasons. Let's start with "what is the career path for a guy who does nothing but keep a dead product walking?" So in reality, what people want is "keep focusing on products i care about". But that isn't always a viable model.
- jamesjyu 10y agoIt's difficult to motivate a team to work on a stagnating product.