>> Have you ever talked to a product manager about "technical debt"? Newsflash- they don't give a shit. Eng manager turned product manager here. It's not that

>> Have you ever talked to a product manager about "technical debt"? Newsflash- they don't give a shit. Eng manager turned product manager here. It's not that we don't give a shit - but paying down the debt isn't always worth it. For example in this case, if they always knew they were going to wind down Periscope (or at least that it wasn't strategic compared to what they were doing with Twitter) then investing deeply into it would have just been a waste. Here's an example. You buy a house in the spring. You know the heating system is very old and will likely fail soon (technical debt.) Should you invest in it? The answer is "it depends." If you plan to live in this house for a long time, then yes because the last thing you want is for heat to fail in the middle of next winter. However, what if this is just your summer residence? Suddenly fixing the heat is much less urgent (you still have the debt but the risk of it coming due in a very bad way is much less.) Or, you bought the house for the land and plan to tear it down. You would be stupid to fix the heat. I think the Periscope situation is much closer to that last thing. They bought it for something other than the stand-alone Periscope product so throwing a bunch of resources at it didn't make sense. Which isn't the same as not giving a shit.