6 ms·

For comparison, the total killed products here: 343, since 1975. That's about 7.8 per year. Killed Google products: 194, since 1996 [0]. That's about 8.4 per y

For comparison, the total killed products here: 343, since 1975. That's about 7.8 per year. Killed Google products: 194, since 1996 [0]. That's about 8.4 per year. So all-in-all, Google isn't doing that much worse. [0] https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/

pwinnski 7y ago
Many of the Microsoft products continued working after support ended, or were replaced by something else with the same functionality. Google's products stop working completely, and are rarely superseded. They just go away.
corodra 7y ago
Yea, but going through the list, a lot of the products are vain rebrands. Some of which still exist in one form or another. Some haven't exactly died either, they were just absorbed into "bigger" products. Though, RT being put out to pasture.... I had to develop an app for that arbitrary lockout piece of trash. Whoever thought of RT and whoever approved it, deserves a life-long raging case of crabs and... like... a monthly visit of dysentery.
- tech-historian 7y ago
  The list specifically lists products that didn't have a specific drop-in upgrade path. So the rebrands are different products that users had to make a decision about purchasing their successor (if there was one) or go with a competitor.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    At least some of these products had free replacements, or replacements that were bundled with future versions of windows. Microsoft Internet Explorer is on the list, and I'm pretty sure its replacement (Edge) costs nothing.
kick 7y ago
I feel as if Microsoft has released overall far more products than Google, though I don't have a resource on hand to substantiate that claim. I think the statistic is only valuable if it's killed-per-released product.
filoleg 7y ago
Might be worth comparing the ratio of killed products vs. supported products as well, instead of just the absolute number for the number of killed products. I dont have any data to back up this assertion, but i have a feeling that this ratio would differ very significantly between Google and MSFT.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Nition 7y ago
It's not the same because Google's products are all (or at least mostly?) services, whereas many of the Microsoft products listed are simple releases with no continuing support required for them to still work (e.g. 3D Movie Maker). "Killed" (can't use it anymore), vs. "Discontinued" (might stop working on new operating systems at some point in the future).
- 8ytecoder 7y ago
  Some of the products in that list also got superseded by better tools with different names.
- tech-historian 7y ago
  True, but Microsoft has plenty of these too. Look at the specific list of retired Microsoft websites and services. There's a lot of them (69 to be exact): https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-microsoft-sites-and-services https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-micros...
  - Nition 7y ago
    I don't disagree. Just seemed a bit unfair to lump Microsoft's whole discontinued list in with Google's killed list.
- aylmao 7y ago
  This is actually a great point, and one thing that has me skeptical of Stadia and other upcoming game-streaming services. People who never got rid of their NES can still play their games. If it breaks, they could buy another one, or maybe even try to fix it themselves. Once a service shuts down, you don't really have anything to keep or to revisit. If there was a Stadia-only game in the future, could you somehow get a copy and run it on local hardware to keep playing if Stadia shut down? Could you do it easily. Super Mario Bros, Classic Tetris, etc. they still have active communities of speed-runners, tournaments, etc. It's kind of weird that something with the level of cultural impact a videogame can have could all of a sudden disappear because it doesn't exist anywhere but in a centralized space outside the control of the people who experienced it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tech-historian 7y ago
That's an interesting statistic, but it's difficult to compare the two apples-to-apples. Most of Microsoft's discontinued products cost actual money to purchase. Most of the Google discontinued products were free. In addition, many of the Google products listed are essentially acqui-hires. Products with limited user base. Microsoft has very few of those. So if you wanted to really do a full analysis, those would be some things to examine. It would be really interesting to see.
- close04 7y ago
  You’re painting this in a very biased light. When MS discontinued Software X people who paid for it could maybe even use it to this day. Some of that software was also a one time release with no maintenance to speak of. And most other pieces of software just had the functionality rolled into a bigger suite (with or without a gap in between) because it made sense. Comparing this to killing a service is not a fair way to put it. The fact that they were acqui-killings as a justification or consolation is a bit of a stretch. The difference between killing a service and abandoning (discontinuing) a product is not just one of semantics, it’s huge.
  - tech-historian 7y ago
    I disagree with your premise, but even then... Microsoft has discontinued lots of online services too! Almost 70: https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-microsoft-sites-and-services https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-micros... Big companies cancel things. Priorities change, opportunities shift. It happens.
    - close04 7y ago
      You're correct, they did discontinue/killed a lot of stuff. I just noticed you insist on painting them in a much worse light throughout the discussion compared to how you paint Google. And you don't consider that MS is also exactly twice the age of Google (22 extra years to discontinue/kill products and services). I know whoever brought Google in the discussion was engaging in a bit of whataboutism but I think we can agree that while MS has some big failures (Windows Phone/Mobile sized), they are not standing out among other big names in the industry and are nowhere near as egregious with the practice as Google.
extesy 7y ago
You should normalize this by the company size. Larger company is expected to discontinue more products.
nogabebop23 7y ago
We should compare the time between officially discountinued and no longer usable. For Google products it's the same date but I did and do use MS products long after they are killed off* * Image Composer, MS Money, Media Center, Movie Maker, WinDIff, Web Matrix, Silverlight, the list goes on...

pwinnski 7y ago

Many of the Microsoft products continued working after support ended, or were replaced by something else with the same functionality. Google's products stop working completely, and are rarely superseded. They just go away.

corodra 7y ago

Yea, but going through the list, a lot of the products are vain rebrands. Some of which still exist in one form or another. Some haven't exactly died either, they were just absorbed into "bigger" products. Though, RT being put out to pasture.... I had to develop an app for that arbitrary lockout piece of trash. Whoever thought of RT and whoever approved it, deserves a life-long raging case of crabs and... like... a monthly visit of dysentery.

tech-historian 7y ago
The list specifically lists products that didn't have a specific drop-in upgrade path. So the rebrands are different products that users had to make a decision about purchasing their successor (if there was one) or go with a competitor.
- catalogia 7y ago
  At least some of these products had free replacements, or replacements that were bundled with future versions of windows. Microsoft Internet Explorer is on the list, and I'm pretty sure its replacement (Edge) costs nothing.

kick 7y ago

I feel as if Microsoft has released overall far more products than Google, though I don't have a resource on hand to substantiate that claim. I think the statistic is only valuable if it's killed-per-released product.

filoleg 7y ago

Might be worth comparing the ratio of killed products vs. supported products as well, instead of just the absolute number for the number of killed products. I dont have any data to back up this assertion, but i have a feeling that this ratio would differ very significantly between Google and MSFT.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Nition 7y ago

It's not the same because Google's products are all (or at least mostly?) services, whereas many of the Microsoft products listed are simple releases with no continuing support required for them to still work (e.g. 3D Movie Maker). "Killed" (can't use it anymore), vs. "Discontinued" (might stop working on new operating systems at some point in the future).

8ytecoder 7y ago
Some of the products in that list also got superseded by better tools with different names.
tech-historian 7y ago
True, but Microsoft has plenty of these too. Look at the specific list of retired Microsoft websites and services. There's a lot of them (69 to be exact): https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-microsoft-sites-and-services https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-micros...
- Nition 7y ago
  I don't disagree. Just seemed a bit unfair to lump Microsoft's whole discontinued list in with Google's killed list.
aylmao 7y ago
This is actually a great point, and one thing that has me skeptical of Stadia and other upcoming game-streaming services. People who never got rid of their NES can still play their games. If it breaks, they could buy another one, or maybe even try to fix it themselves. Once a service shuts down, you don't really have anything to keep or to revisit. If there was a Stadia-only game in the future, could you somehow get a copy and run it on local hardware to keep playing if Stadia shut down? Could you do it easily. Super Mario Bros, Classic Tetris, etc. they still have active communities of speed-runners, tournaments, etc. It's kind of weird that something with the level of cultural impact a videogame can have could all of a sudden disappear because it doesn't exist anywhere but in a centralized space outside the control of the people who experienced it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tech-historian 7y ago

That's an interesting statistic, but it's difficult to compare the two apples-to-apples. Most of Microsoft's discontinued products cost actual money to purchase. Most of the Google discontinued products were free. In addition, many of the Google products listed are essentially acqui-hires. Products with limited user base. Microsoft has very few of those. So if you wanted to really do a full analysis, those would be some things to examine. It would be really interesting to see.

close04 7y ago
You’re painting this in a very biased light. When MS discontinued Software X people who paid for it could maybe even use it to this day. Some of that software was also a one time release with no maintenance to speak of. And most other pieces of software just had the functionality rolled into a bigger suite (with or without a gap in between) because it made sense. Comparing this to killing a service is not a fair way to put it. The fact that they were acqui-killings as a justification or consolation is a bit of a stretch. The difference between killing a service and abandoning (discontinuing) a product is not just one of semantics, it’s huge.
- tech-historian 7y ago
  I disagree with your premise, but even then... Microsoft has discontinued lots of online services too! Almost 70: https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-microsoft-sites-and-services https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/discontinued-micros... Big companies cancel things. Priorities change, opportunities shift. It happens.
  - close04 7y ago
    You're correct, they did discontinue/killed a lot of stuff. I just noticed you insist on painting them in a much worse light throughout the discussion compared to how you paint Google. And you don't consider that MS is also exactly twice the age of Google (22 extra years to discontinue/kill products and services). I know whoever brought Google in the discussion was engaging in a bit of whataboutism but I think we can agree that while MS has some big failures (Windows Phone/Mobile sized), they are not standing out among other big names in the industry and are nowhere near as egregious with the practice as Google.

extesy 7y ago

You should normalize this by the company size. Larger company is expected to discontinue more products.

nogabebop23 7y ago

We should compare the time between officially discountinued and no longer usable. For Google products it's the same date but I did and do use MS products long after they are killed off* * Image Composer, MS Money, Media Center, Movie Maker, WinDIff, Web Matrix, Silverlight, the list goes on...