4 ms·

"Death is very likely the single best invention of life." — SJ This is a dishonest website. Many of the products or technologies that have been "killed" were r

by leoh 6y ago

"Death is very likely the single best invention of life." — SJ This is a dishonest website. Many of the products or technologies that have been "killed" were replaced by other compelling products in the space — either by Google itself or by third parties — or could not be monetized. Google is not a public utility and there is little incentive — nay, it would be strictly harmful — for them to continue building products that are non-competitive in the marketplace. Killing products is beneficial and non-monopolistic as it allows other developers to build products as opposed to Google offering them for free ad-infinitum. By contrast, this is in direct opposition to Amazon's strategy, which is to offer an incredible number of products and services at a loss, thereby depriving other players from competing. One day, people will realize that Amazon's actions unquestionably drove down the quality of products (they already have, one need not look far — just consider the quality of Whole Foods goods post-acquisition or the myriad scam products listed as real on Amazon's website). Side-note: should Google have continued to maintain Angular when other solutions are clearly better? What would be the point? Google did the right thing, letting Angular die a dignified death and letting superior technologies like React take the reins. EDIT: if you are down-voting me, would you care to explain why instead of merely doing that? EDIT 2: this is a great comment which further clarifies the part of the point https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24694575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24694575

domador 6y ago
What's dishonest about it? I think "killed" is often a fair description, especially when the "replacement" is an altogether different program (such as in the case of Google Cloud Connect, which Google Drive didn't suitably replace.) Yes, Google is not a public utility... but users' willingness to adopt new services is not a free, renewable resource, either. Some of us get tired of embracing new tools only for them to be ripped out of our hands by their maker, after we've made them an integral part of our workflow. I've become more of a laggard due to Google's and other companies' actions in this area.
- leoh 6y ago
  It's dishonest because it doesn't offer a balanced view, merely articulating all the products Google has killed without offering any kind of insight as to _why_ they killed so many products or the fact that they didn't really "kill" some products at all. Sure, it's not "inaccurate." But framing is everything, and we're increasingly living in an intensely context-free, implicitly dishonest world. I could build a website where all I talk about all day is all the cool things Trump does (he undoubtedly does at least some cool shit) without a single mention of his inadequacies. Would you disagree with the dishonest characterization there?
  - vasachi 6y ago
    You can’t be dishonest by telling the truth.
    - leoh 6y ago
      Yes you can. Did you read the thing you replied to? Please also consider https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227763292_Storks_Deliver_Babies_p_0008 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227763292_Storks_De..., "Storks Deliver Babies (p= 0.008)" as a particularly illustrative real-world example.
    - MaulingMonkey 6y ago
      The best lies are often told through plausibly deniable context, subtext, and implication - where the blame can be shifted to the listener instead of the speaker - while speaking not a single word that wasn't "the truth". Tell the truth such that it sounds like a lie. Tell the truth so it sounds as if it were the full truth instead of merely half the story. I'd consider doing these things intentionally to be dishonest. I don't think I'd go so far as to call the website dishonest - I don't think it's necessairly trying to present itself as telling a full, balanced, unbiased story - but it's absolutely possible to be dishonest by telling the truth.
  - theamk 6y ago
    As a user, it absolutely does not matter “why” to me. I see a new google product. Should I spend time getting used to it? A service is provided by Google or a third-party app. Should I choose Google “by default”? I recently spent a few days trying to get google cloud print to work. It will be killed in a few months. Do I care why - was it replaced by competitor’s product, was it non-monetizeable, was it for the good of other developers? Nope, I don’t care. The main point of this website is to illustrate that Google products, even if nice and polished, sometimes live much shorter than desired. And website does this splendidly.
topkai22 6y ago
On AngularJS- Google could have provided a managed transition to a foundation or non-profit responsible for the continuance of the existing code base. Instead they are explicitly not providing a path forward for the community to take ownership. There are better frameworks out there now for new projects, but there is a massive install base, particularly in the enterprise, that has no need or desire to shift to a new framework. There is no path forward for those applications in Googles model- it is pretty much a rewrite or nothing. Now, I’m sure there will be some fork of angularJS that goes on to provide even longer term support and/or paid patching, but this still wasn’t managed as well as it could be in my opinion. Like the rest of the OP site, it’s another indicator that Google doesn’t care to support long lived systems, and you should be cautious of taking dependencies on them if you do.
codyogden 6y ago
Creator here. My intent to keep things minimal is often criticized, but when you visit a graveyard you don't often go looking for the names of successors, the reason they died, or if someone 'Frankensteined' them into an alternate existence. Graveyards are for everyone, and the story they tell is very subjective to the visitor. CEOs may find a sense of caution about adopting a new, non-core Google product, or they may feel emboldened to make a decision to cut a large product in order to focus on something else. Entrepreneurs may find inspiration for a brand new product, or inspiration to build a similar-but-better product. Academics and journalists may use it to track the history of products. Users? Users will go, scroll down the list, find a product they haven't thought about in years, and have fond memories of all the cool stuff they did with it. As far as rebrands and cherry-picked feature migrations? An organ donor whose heart is harvested and placed in another person's body doesn't keep living. From a user's perspective, the difference in emotional connection to Nexus vs Pixel can be HUGE. Why shouldn't they have a place to mourn that? Finally, you link to a comment that attempts to provide reason for why things are killed, but that information is really proprietary. Google's usual move is a vague excuse like "focusing our resources" which is PR speak for not enough users...or maybe it means we couldn't monetize it...or maybe it means that the market didn't respond as we expected...or maybe it means...there was some internal politics afloat. --- I feel that speculating--even incorrectly--would be more dishonest than not speculating on the reasoning at all. So, I don't feel the site is dishonest. Providing enough context in that "these things before you are dead products" is its entire point, and the user's perspective and takeaway is left up to them to discover.

by leoh 6y ago

domador 6y ago

What's dishonest about it? I think "killed" is often a fair description, especially when the "replacement" is an altogether different program (such as in the case of Google Cloud Connect, which Google Drive didn't suitably replace.) Yes, Google is not a public utility... but users' willingness to adopt new services is not a free, renewable resource, either. Some of us get tired of embracing new tools only for them to be ripped out of our hands by their maker, after we've made them an integral part of our workflow. I've become more of a laggard due to Google's and other companies' actions in this area.

leoh 6y ago
It's dishonest because it doesn't offer a balanced view, merely articulating all the products Google has killed without offering any kind of insight as to _why_ they killed so many products or the fact that they didn't really "kill" some products at all. Sure, it's not "inaccurate." But framing is everything, and we're increasingly living in an intensely context-free, implicitly dishonest world. I could build a website where all I talk about all day is all the cool things Trump does (he undoubtedly does at least some cool shit) without a single mention of his inadequacies. Would you disagree with the dishonest characterization there?
- vasachi 6y ago
  You can’t be dishonest by telling the truth.
  - leoh 6y ago
    Yes you can. Did you read the thing you replied to? Please also consider https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227763292_Storks_Deliver_Babies_p_0008 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227763292_Storks_De..., "Storks Deliver Babies (p= 0.008)" as a particularly illustrative real-world example.
  - MaulingMonkey 6y ago
    The best lies are often told through plausibly deniable context, subtext, and implication - where the blame can be shifted to the listener instead of the speaker - while speaking not a single word that wasn't "the truth". Tell the truth such that it sounds like a lie. Tell the truth so it sounds as if it were the full truth instead of merely half the story. I'd consider doing these things intentionally to be dishonest. I don't think I'd go so far as to call the website dishonest - I don't think it's necessairly trying to present itself as telling a full, balanced, unbiased story - but it's absolutely possible to be dishonest by telling the truth.
- theamk 6y ago
  As a user, it absolutely does not matter “why” to me. I see a new google product. Should I spend time getting used to it? A service is provided by Google or a third-party app. Should I choose Google “by default”? I recently spent a few days trying to get google cloud print to work. It will be killed in a few months. Do I care why - was it replaced by competitor’s product, was it non-monetizeable, was it for the good of other developers? Nope, I don’t care. The main point of this website is to illustrate that Google products, even if nice and polished, sometimes live much shorter than desired. And website does this splendidly.

topkai22 6y ago

On AngularJS- Google could have provided a managed transition to a foundation or non-profit responsible for the continuance of the existing code base. Instead they are explicitly not providing a path forward for the community to take ownership. There are better frameworks out there now for new projects, but there is a massive install base, particularly in the enterprise, that has no need or desire to shift to a new framework. There is no path forward for those applications in Googles model- it is pretty much a rewrite or nothing. Now, I’m sure there will be some fork of angularJS that goes on to provide even longer term support and/or paid patching, but this still wasn’t managed as well as it could be in my opinion. Like the rest of the OP site, it’s another indicator that Google doesn’t care to support long lived systems, and you should be cautious of taking dependencies on them if you do.

codyogden 6y ago

Creator here. My intent to keep things minimal is often criticized, but when you visit a graveyard you don't often go looking for the names of successors, the reason they died, or if someone 'Frankensteined' them into an alternate existence. Graveyards are for everyone, and the story they tell is very subjective to the visitor. CEOs may find a sense of caution about adopting a new, non-core Google product, or they may feel emboldened to make a decision to cut a large product in order to focus on something else. Entrepreneurs may find inspiration for a brand new product, or inspiration to build a similar-but-better product. Academics and journalists may use it to track the history of products. Users? Users will go, scroll down the list, find a product they haven't thought about in years, and have fond memories of all the cool stuff they did with it. As far as rebrands and cherry-picked feature migrations? An organ donor whose heart is harvested and placed in another person's body doesn't keep living. From a user's perspective, the difference in emotional connection to Nexus vs Pixel can be HUGE. Why shouldn't they have a place to mourn that? Finally, you link to a comment that attempts to provide reason for why things are killed, but that information is really proprietary. Google's usual move is a vague excuse like "focusing our resources" which is PR speak for not enough users...or maybe it means we couldn't monetize it...or maybe it means that the market didn't respond as we expected...or maybe it means...there was some internal politics afloat. --- I feel that speculating--even incorrectly--would be more dishonest than not speculating on the reasoning at all. So, I don't feel the site is dishonest. Providing enough context in that "these things before you are dead products" is its entire point, and the user's perspective and takeaway is left up to them to discover.