5 ms·

I can assure you that's not the case! Also, while people like to repeat this meme, Google Cloud does have a formal deprecation policy (https://cloud.google.com

I can assure you that's not the case! Also, while people like to repeat this meme, Google Cloud does have a formal deprecation policy (https://cloud.google.com/terms/ https://cloud.google.com/terms/), whose intent is to give you some assurances. (I work at Google, on GKE, though I am not a lawyer and thus don't work on the deprecation policy)

whydoineedthis 8y ago
im pretty sure he just forget the /s (sarcasm) on his post, but this was pretty cool information anyway, so thanks!
brian-armstrong 8y ago
What happens when they suddenly deprecate the deprecation policy?
- omeid2 8y ago
  Nothing, sort of. Subject to "Section 1.7 Modifications" of Terms: b. To the Agreement: Google may make changes to this Agreement, including pricing (and any linked documents) from time to time. .... Google will provide at least 90 days’ advance notice for materially adverse changes to any SLAs by either: (i) sending an email to Customer’s primary point of contact; (ii) posting a notice in the Admin Console; or (iii) posting a notice to the applicable SLA webpage. If Customer does not agree to the revised Agreement, please stop using the Services. Google will post any modification to this Agreement to the Terms URL.
  - skrebbel 8y ago
    So the deprecation policy is "you got 90 days".
chrisseaton 8y ago
> Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer for any reason at any time
- chongli 8y ago
  But hey, it's all spelled out in the policy, so don't say we didn't warn you! Caveat emptor, folks.
- 8ytecoder 8y ago
  >Subject to Section 7.2 Which is the deprecation policy. (I mean I share your frustration with Google's what-appears-to-be-at-least haphazard policy of shutting down services instead of trying to gain traction. But, let's not misrepresent what they say).
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    I thought that 'subject to 7.2' meant that they can use the escape-hatch there 'substantial economic or material technical burden'? They can list anything under that. I don't think it's wrong - they can deprecate any service they want to do whenever they want, unless people have paid for and signed a contract that says otherwise which I guess people aren't doing. But the policy doesn't really guarantee anything at all does it, due to the reference escape-hatches? It might as well not exist?
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  The preceding line is the imprtant part. Which is essentially "Subject to the deprecation policy [which says that Google will give at least 1 year notice before cancelling services], Google may discontinue..." In other words, at any time, google can give you a years notice. (I work at Google, but am not a lawyer and this isn't official in any capacity). Please don't selectively quote things out of context to give a misleading impression.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    But what do these things mean? > commercially reasonable > substantial economic or material technical burden Is one engineer working on an old service to keep it alive commercially reasonable or a substantial burden? I don't know. Do you? In practice this policy lets them shut off anything they want any time they want. Again it's their playground they can do what they want unless they signed a contract saying they'd do something else for you so I don't have a problem with it.
davemp 8y ago
I think it’s telling of Google’s culture that the corporate arm felt the need to formalize this in law. I won’t pretend to know what it’s telling. Just suggest that you listen for yourself. Look at rule of law versus the ideas of liberty if you’d like a stronger nudge.
- jeffcore 8y ago
  AWS' Customer Agreement[1] essentially has the same language. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar language from other cloud providers as well. Seems rather prudent on their part. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
  - davemp 8y ago
    I would suggest the inference I was alluding to would also apply amazon. Note how I never stated the inference. This is because I wanted to share a way of thinking without feeling the responsibility to reply to people attempting to force me to prove some prescriptive, arbitrary inference rule by exhaustion. I do not participate in such practices casually. I also consider it rude to subject people to such practices without consent. I also believe it is a practice that kills online discussion platforms. See this community’s thought provoking guidelines :) > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

whydoineedthis 8y ago

im pretty sure he just forget the /s (sarcasm) on his post, but this was pretty cool information anyway, so thanks!

brian-armstrong 8y ago

What happens when they suddenly deprecate the deprecation policy?

omeid2 8y ago
Nothing, sort of. Subject to "Section 1.7 Modifications" of Terms: b. To the Agreement: Google may make changes to this Agreement, including pricing (and any linked documents) from time to time. .... Google will provide at least 90 days’ advance notice for materially adverse changes to any SLAs by either: (i) sending an email to Customer’s primary point of contact; (ii) posting a notice in the Admin Console; or (iii) posting a notice to the applicable SLA webpage. If Customer does not agree to the revised Agreement, please stop using the Services. Google will post any modification to this Agreement to the Terms URL.
- skrebbel 8y ago
  So the deprecation policy is "you got 90 days".

chrisseaton 8y ago

> Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer for any reason at any time

chongli 8y ago
But hey, it's all spelled out in the policy, so don't say we didn't warn you! Caveat emptor, folks.
8ytecoder 8y ago
>Subject to Section 7.2 Which is the deprecation policy. (I mean I share your frustration with Google's what-appears-to-be-at-least haphazard policy of shutting down services instead of trying to gain traction. But, let's not misrepresent what they say).
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  I thought that 'subject to 7.2' meant that they can use the escape-hatch there 'substantial economic or material technical burden'? They can list anything under that. I don't think it's wrong - they can deprecate any service they want to do whenever they want, unless people have paid for and signed a contract that says otherwise which I guess people aren't doing. But the policy doesn't really guarantee anything at all does it, due to the reference escape-hatches? It might as well not exist?
joshuamorton 8y ago
The preceding line is the imprtant part. Which is essentially "Subject to the deprecation policy [which says that Google will give at least 1 year notice before cancelling services], Google may discontinue..." In other words, at any time, google can give you a years notice. (I work at Google, but am not a lawyer and this isn't official in any capacity). Please don't selectively quote things out of context to give a misleading impression.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  But what do these things mean? > commercially reasonable > substantial economic or material technical burden Is one engineer working on an old service to keep it alive commercially reasonable or a substantial burden? I don't know. Do you? In practice this policy lets them shut off anything they want any time they want. Again it's their playground they can do what they want unless they signed a contract saying they'd do something else for you so I don't have a problem with it.

davemp 8y ago

I think it’s telling of Google’s culture that the corporate arm felt the need to formalize this in law. I won’t pretend to know what it’s telling. Just suggest that you listen for yourself. Look at rule of law versus the ideas of liberty if you’d like a stronger nudge.

jeffcore 8y ago
AWS' Customer Agreement[1] essentially has the same language. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar language from other cloud providers as well. Seems rather prudent on their part. [1] https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
- davemp 8y ago
  I would suggest the inference I was alluding to would also apply amazon. Note how I never stated the inference. This is because I wanted to share a way of thinking without feeling the responsibility to reply to people attempting to force me to prove some prescriptive, arbitrary inference rule by exhaustion. I do not participate in such practices casually. I also consider it rude to subject people to such practices without consent. I also believe it is a practice that kills online discussion platforms. See this community’s thought provoking guidelines :) > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.