3 ms·

At this point it's standard fair for Google, in my opinion, a large reason this ended up being unsuccessful was that people were worried it was going to be shut

• hinkley 4y ago
  Oh I’m totally on Team Popcorn at this point, I’m more talking about “hey kids, copying a Google is not the ticket to success”. Being caught saying “don’t worry” just damages their brand more. What they really need is to declare some things as sacred cows. But you can’t do that after you’ve already lied using the same phrasing.
  • chaostheory 4y ago
    I can’t believe that I’m defending Google, but this time at least they offered credit or refunds for any purchases. Google not doing this in the past has made me extremely hesitant in paying for new Google devices that feel risky. This will alleviate that worry a bit
    • hinkley 4y ago
      It's a very common problem in software that we target 'better' instead of 'good'. Or as we used to call it, "sucks less." It doesn't help that we keep trying to 'disrupt' domains that had no software or had software written by people who know how to write critical systems. It does sound like they're trying to do better, but it was a long time coming and this still isn't good behavior.
      • johnnyanmac 4y ago
        I don't see how this is bad in the consumer's perepctive. Those that didn't use it lose or gain nothing. Those that did use it get their refunds. They don't care about the dev side.I don't think it's bad behavior to shut down something no one watns. The exec communication with the devs is unfortunate, but a separate matter.