6 ms·

What a useful app. Reminds me of Airtable in some ways. I enjoy a good flexible table app any day. We're all tired of the obligatory "I wonder how long before

What a useful app. Reminds me of Airtable in some ways. I enjoy a good flexible table app any day. We're all tired of the obligatory "I wonder how long before Google deprecates this...;)" but I wonder if Google would get better adoption if they explicitly published what would be needed for them not to drop the product... 1M monthly users? 3M? ...xM? or that when a project actually reaches that point.

ashtonkem 6y ago
The only way to rebuild credibility is to do the right thing repeatedly for a long period of time. Google saying “if we get X users we won’t cancel it” both sounds like a hostage note, and doesn’t matter because we fundamentally don’t trust Google. Without that trust, it doesn’t matter why they say, since it won’t be believed.
- hackmiester 6y ago
  If they say they need X users to not cancel something, that does nothing for me, even if I trust them. I will not sign up until it already hits that point, because before then, it's practically guaranteed to be canceled. And I bet at least X users would share my opinion.
- andrewprock 6y ago
  If they could just commit to maintaining Hangouts, they would go a long way to rebuilding trust. I know many school aged kids who joined Hangouts (though Google classroom IIRC) as a painless way to collaborate with classmates and friends. It's literally a gold mine for "next generation" social networking, but the fact that they are killing Hangouts means those kids are all finding their way to other feature rich platforms, like Discord.
onion2k 6y ago
I wonder if Google would get better adoption if they explicitly published what would be needed for them not to drop the product.. Feedly picked up 3 million new users in the two weeks following Google shutting down Reader. Based on that alone I would never trust Google not to shut down a product that seems popular and well-used. Literally the only thing that would change my perception of Google's short-termism would be if they don't shut down any products in the next 10 years.
prlambert 6y ago
[Disclosure I work at Google Area 120 and would be partly responsible for this type of decision] This is a really helpful comment and I like the nod to transparency. Thank you! Not sure we could get quite so concrete publicly (there are lots of unknowns and wouldn't want to make commitments we can't keep), but aligning goals between the business, team, and users/customers is a great idea and something we can improve on.
- someone7x 6y ago
  Are all these comments about the near and inevitable death of your new product at all soul-crushing? I'm a stranger on the internet and even I can feel the burn. Good luck.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    I’m sure the coming promotion/fat refresher for shipping a product helps ease the suffering.
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      Have they fixed the incentives yet? Or is it still "ship = good, maintain = bad," guaranteeing that the pattern continues?
      - shajznnckfke 6y ago
        I’m not sure the incentive is really wrong, although it sucks for the users affected. It’s sort of like how VCs want startups to reach unicorn status or go bust trying. Google doesn’t want to waste engineers running a lifestyle business.
  - cflewis 6y ago
    As a Googler, I'd just say it's a boring meme that shows little thought and just wastes time actually getting to interesting discussion here. It's almost akin to "first" from the old days of Slashdot or the race to mention generics whenever anything related to Go comes up. Products come and products go, this is not unique to Google. Killed By Google is cited as some sort of proof, but that goes back to _2003_, and does nothing to talk about whether the product was replaced with something new that users were transitioned to. Then you have a company like Microsoft that keeps things around in perpetuity, but sometimes to the chagrin of users who want new features added or you get incongruent UX (you can still find plenty of very old apps in Windows 10). And this is fine too, but it's not a meme and so never comes up.
gerash 6y ago
This is an experimental project obviously and has that Area120 tag but I think there should be a uniform experimental logo/icon across all of Google products for any projects which is provided as is with no upfront commitment to long term support or sustainability. Once the distinction between products with long-term commitment and experimental products is super clear with a uniform icon/logo then there'll be less disappointment and upset future customers
- prlambert 6y ago
  Just to confirm, the Area 120 labelling is meant to do exactly that. Area 120 projects do not have long-term commitments, explicitly. But the goal is for the successful ones to graduate to be a fully supported Google product and gain those commitments at that time (we have a number of examples of that happening).
  - mh- 6y ago
    I think sharing some of those examples might be helpful.
  - gerash 6y ago
    IMO it's still not clear from a single glance. Either no Google logo anywhere near experimental stuff or a super visible uniform "Beta/Experimental" logo as long as a product has no long term commitment. I'd say they should use the same logo whether it's an area120 project, an experimental chrome extension from YT team, some research experiment, some VR experimental app, etc.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Because Google labs was just too confusing right?
clairity 6y ago
nothing will lead to better adoption, because, as others have pointed out, google has trashed its brand (at least among techies) because of structural issues like promotion-hopping and big game hunting (where, for example, a $50M business is just way beneath them). further, we're never going to get sustainable businesses out of google because they don't have the patience relative to their search and advertising behemoths. these kinds of projects are designed to keep the more adventurous developers in the fold with golden handcuffs, to both reduce existential threats to google and as a held front in the developer wars against other tech companies. lastly, constraints spur ingenuity (business and technical), and google engineers are just too comfortable for that. all that (and more) means that google is simply not in the business of creating new businesses, no matter the rhetoric. unless something drastic changes, there's no reason to invest in any new google development.

ashtonkem 6y ago

The only way to rebuild credibility is to do the right thing repeatedly for a long period of time. Google saying “if we get X users we won’t cancel it” both sounds like a hostage note, and doesn’t matter because we fundamentally don’t trust Google. Without that trust, it doesn’t matter why they say, since it won’t be believed.

hackmiester 6y ago
If they say they need X users to not cancel something, that does nothing for me, even if I trust them. I will not sign up until it already hits that point, because before then, it's practically guaranteed to be canceled. And I bet at least X users would share my opinion.
andrewprock 6y ago
If they could just commit to maintaining Hangouts, they would go a long way to rebuilding trust. I know many school aged kids who joined Hangouts (though Google classroom IIRC) as a painless way to collaborate with classmates and friends. It's literally a gold mine for "next generation" social networking, but the fact that they are killing Hangouts means those kids are all finding their way to other feature rich platforms, like Discord.

onion2k 6y ago

I wonder if Google would get better adoption if they explicitly published what would be needed for them not to drop the product.. Feedly picked up 3 million new users in the two weeks following Google shutting down Reader. Based on that alone I would never trust Google not to shut down a product that seems popular and well-used. Literally the only thing that would change my perception of Google's short-termism would be if they don't shut down any products in the next 10 years.

prlambert 6y ago

[Disclosure I work at Google Area 120 and would be partly responsible for this type of decision] This is a really helpful comment and I like the nod to transparency. Thank you! Not sure we could get quite so concrete publicly (there are lots of unknowns and wouldn't want to make commitments we can't keep), but aligning goals between the business, team, and users/customers is a great idea and something we can improve on.

someone7x 6y ago
Are all these comments about the near and inevitable death of your new product at all soul-crushing? I'm a stranger on the internet and even I can feel the burn. Good luck.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  I’m sure the coming promotion/fat refresher for shipping a product helps ease the suffering.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Have they fixed the incentives yet? Or is it still "ship = good, maintain = bad," guaranteeing that the pattern continues?
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      I’m not sure the incentive is really wrong, although it sucks for the users affected. It’s sort of like how VCs want startups to reach unicorn status or go bust trying. Google doesn’t want to waste engineers running a lifestyle business.
- cflewis 6y ago
  As a Googler, I'd just say it's a boring meme that shows little thought and just wastes time actually getting to interesting discussion here. It's almost akin to "first" from the old days of Slashdot or the race to mention generics whenever anything related to Go comes up. Products come and products go, this is not unique to Google. Killed By Google is cited as some sort of proof, but that goes back to _2003_, and does nothing to talk about whether the product was replaced with something new that users were transitioned to. Then you have a company like Microsoft that keeps things around in perpetuity, but sometimes to the chagrin of users who want new features added or you get incongruent UX (you can still find plenty of very old apps in Windows 10). And this is fine too, but it's not a meme and so never comes up.

gerash 6y ago

This is an experimental project obviously and has that Area120 tag but I think there should be a uniform experimental logo/icon across all of Google products for any projects which is provided as is with no upfront commitment to long term support or sustainability. Once the distinction between products with long-term commitment and experimental products is super clear with a uniform icon/logo then there'll be less disappointment and upset future customers

prlambert 6y ago
Just to confirm, the Area 120 labelling is meant to do exactly that. Area 120 projects do not have long-term commitments, explicitly. But the goal is for the successful ones to graduate to be a fully supported Google product and gain those commitments at that time (we have a number of examples of that happening).
- mh- 6y ago
  I think sharing some of those examples might be helpful.
- gerash 6y ago
  IMO it's still not clear from a single glance. Either no Google logo anywhere near experimental stuff or a super visible uniform "Beta/Experimental" logo as long as a product has no long term commitment. I'd say they should use the same logo whether it's an area120 project, an experimental chrome extension from YT team, some research experiment, some VR experimental app, etc.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Because Google labs was just too confusing right?

clairity 6y ago

nothing will lead to better adoption, because, as others have pointed out, google has trashed its brand (at least among techies) because of structural issues like promotion-hopping and big game hunting (where, for example, a $50M business is just way beneath them). further, we're never going to get sustainable businesses out of google because they don't have the patience relative to their search and advertising behemoths. these kinds of projects are designed to keep the more adventurous developers in the fold with golden handcuffs, to both reduce existential threats to google and as a held front in the developer wars against other tech companies. lastly, constraints spur ingenuity (business and technical), and google engineers are just too comfortable for that. all that (and more) means that google is simply not in the business of creating new businesses, no matter the rhetoric. unless something drastic changes, there's no reason to invest in any new google development.