3 ms·

And 270+ products and services that are still alive and resourced. I've got an alternate take -- don't depend on _any_ other company's service without a contin

And 270+ products and services that are still alive and resourced. I've got an alternate take -- don't depend on _any_ other company's service without a contingency plan for if/when it disappears. Attend to possible lock-in regardless of the source, unless you have direct control over its existence. Nothing is permanent. At the risk of sounding like a Google apologist, I'll even suggest that I'd rather a company be willing to retire products and move around resources. Especially if the application has limited available growth and there are several alternatives. Holding on to every product like it's precious is how you acquire some very insidious technical debt. I'm sure there are more than a few of those 294 applications whose time had come for them to go. Were some gone too soon? Perhaps. Some were definitely loved. Does killing off loved products threaten the positive sentiment of users? Of course. But so does stagnation. It's a trade-off decision that neither of us had any ability to alter.

ghaff 3y ago
Pretty much. People go on about Google Reader but 1.) There are still RSS readers out there and 2.) It's easier to blame Google than to blame the 99%+ of the population who wouldn't have known what RSS was if it ran over them on the street. It's just not how the mainstream wanted to consume information after social media came along. Do I think Google could have possibly done a better job with something like Google+ if its DNA were different? Possibly. Do I think its product strategy around chat and video meetings was hilariously bad? Absolutely, even if Meet and Gchat seem perfectly adequate integrated tools today. But I also think something like Wave had some innovative ideas that just didn't grab people. I'm not sure they should have kept it around on life support for years.
latexr 3y ago
> don't depend on _any_ other company's service without a contingency plan for if/when it disappears. Agreed. But some companies are higher risk than others. There are apps that I use that I would never have installed or looked at twice if they were made by Google, because the risk of discontinuation is through the roof. > I'll even suggest that I'd rather a company be willing to retire products and move around resources. (…) Holding on to every product like it's precious is how you acquire some very insidious technical debt. Again, agreed. But if they’re so lenient with the axe, they should be more selective regarding what goes out in the first place. > Some were definitely loved. Does killing off loved products threaten the positive sentiment of users? Of course. And that is exactly why. Soon “everyone” stops trusting your apps and you enter a vicious cycle where nothing ever gets off the ground. > But so does stagnation. I never heard anyone complain of Google Reader being stagnant. Or if they did, their voices were drowned by all the ones complaining for the discontinuation. Anecdotally, I’ve felt the same thing with every moderately liked product Google has discontinued.

ghaff 3y ago

Pretty much. People go on about Google Reader but 1.) There are still RSS readers out there and 2.) It's easier to blame Google than to blame the 99%+ of the population who wouldn't have known what RSS was if it ran over them on the street. It's just not how the mainstream wanted to consume information after social media came along. Do I think Google could have possibly done a better job with something like Google+ if its DNA were different? Possibly. Do I think its product strategy around chat and video meetings was hilariously bad? Absolutely, even if Meet and Gchat seem perfectly adequate integrated tools today. But I also think something like Wave had some innovative ideas that just didn't grab people. I'm not sure they should have kept it around on life support for years.

latexr 3y ago

> don't depend on _any_ other company's service without a contingency plan for if/when it disappears. Agreed. But some companies are higher risk than others. There are apps that I use that I would never have installed or looked at twice if they were made by Google, because the risk of discontinuation is through the roof. > I'll even suggest that I'd rather a company be willing to retire products and move around resources. (…) Holding on to every product like it's precious is how you acquire some very insidious technical debt. Again, agreed. But if they’re so lenient with the axe, they should be more selective regarding what goes out in the first place. > Some were definitely loved. Does killing off loved products threaten the positive sentiment of users? Of course. And that is exactly why. Soon “everyone” stops trusting your apps and you enter a vicious cycle where nothing ever gets off the ground. > But so does stagnation. I never heard anyone complain of Google Reader being stagnant. Or if they did, their voices were drowned by all the ones complaining for the discontinuation. Anecdotally, I’ve felt the same thing with every moderately liked product Google has discontinued.