4 ms·

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

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.

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.