4 ms·

Are you always this salty, so it is only certain topics that make you do this? Always curious why people comment like this when they have a choice to, you know

Are you always this salty, so it is only certain topics that make you do this? Always curious why people comment like this when they have a choice to, you know, not do it

baxtr 1y ago
But isn’t that also what makes us special? Like not everyone is the same and stuff?
transcriptase 1y ago
I assume you’ve never had the delightful experience of relying on a product Google built or acquired then let decay or killed outright because it doesn’t contribute to ad revenue and the people who cared leveraged it in their promo packet to go elsewhere.
- thezilch 1y ago
  No business has the obligation to keep running what you find useful. If it was that useful, someone else will make it. If no one is doing it or well, I see no reason to just complain and offer no solution. If there are other solutions and Google is going to hurt or destroy "competition", that's what should be discussed.
  - transcriptase 1y ago
    You’re allowed to just say I’m right. When Google puts enormous amounts of resources into something like Google Home, then acquires Nest, haphazardly merges the two ecosystems while co-opting the Nest brand for unrelated products, then effectively abandons it except for the occasional update that breaks prior functionality? Sure, no obligation. But I’m not being some sort of whiny brat by pointing out that your experience with Google is driven by what will eventually become forced updates meant to drive you away from a product so they can kill it, because the internal culture/incentives promote launching and not maintaining or improving.
  - atim1412 1y ago
    Someone else won't make it because they already have this for free. Well for this particular case, I think having Google product might just be better than none. But for some more critical things like typhoon warning, when people actually make decision based on data from the system, relying on a product that might get killed 5, 10 years later is worse. If your infra is critical enough, they should nationalized, publicly owned.
thewebguyd 1y ago
> Always curious why people comment like this when they have a choice to, you know, not do it Not OP, but it's still an important consideration - one can be both glad Google is working on this, but also cautiously optimistic given Google's history. IMO it's right to be wary of private entities taking care of what should effectively be a public service.
- thezilch 1y ago
  But how boring and unhelpful to have someone post it on every product that Google builds.
  - mmokka 1y ago
    [flagged]
- Aachen 1y ago
  > cautiously optimistic given Google's history Did you mean cautiously pessimistic? Or maybe that's my bias from reading HN threads where this is a reliable theme in Google product threads, as well as seeing the list of killed products, while not seeing a list of kept-alive products

Are you always this salty, so it is only certain topics that make you do this? Always curious why people comment like this when they have a choice to, you know, not do it

baxtr 1y ago

But isn’t that also what makes us special? Like not everyone is the same and stuff?

transcriptase 1y ago

I assume you’ve never had the delightful experience of relying on a product Google built or acquired then let decay or killed outright because it doesn’t contribute to ad revenue and the people who cared leveraged it in their promo packet to go elsewhere.

thezilch 1y ago
No business has the obligation to keep running what you find useful. If it was that useful, someone else will make it. If no one is doing it or well, I see no reason to just complain and offer no solution. If there are other solutions and Google is going to hurt or destroy "competition", that's what should be discussed.
- transcriptase 1y ago
  You’re allowed to just say I’m right. When Google puts enormous amounts of resources into something like Google Home, then acquires Nest, haphazardly merges the two ecosystems while co-opting the Nest brand for unrelated products, then effectively abandons it except for the occasional update that breaks prior functionality? Sure, no obligation. But I’m not being some sort of whiny brat by pointing out that your experience with Google is driven by what will eventually become forced updates meant to drive you away from a product so they can kill it, because the internal culture/incentives promote launching and not maintaining or improving.
- atim1412 1y ago
  Someone else won't make it because they already have this for free. Well for this particular case, I think having Google product might just be better than none. But for some more critical things like typhoon warning, when people actually make decision based on data from the system, relying on a product that might get killed 5, 10 years later is worse. If your infra is critical enough, they should nationalized, publicly owned.

thewebguyd 1y ago

> Always curious why people comment like this when they have a choice to, you know, not do it Not OP, but it's still an important consideration - one can be both glad Google is working on this, but also cautiously optimistic given Google's history. IMO it's right to be wary of private entities taking care of what should effectively be a public service.

thezilch 1y ago
But how boring and unhelpful to have someone post it on every product that Google builds.
- mmokka 1y ago
  [flagged]
Aachen 1y ago
> cautiously optimistic given Google's history Did you mean cautiously pessimistic? Or maybe that's my bias from reading HN threads where this is a reliable theme in Google product threads, as well as seeing the list of killed products, while not seeing a list of kept-alive products