4 ms·
This is unbelievable. We're all used to Google abandonware by now but the resources required for storage of shortened URLs and any dev maintenance must be so mi
by jmyeet 1y ago
This is unbelievable. We're all used to Google abandonware by now but the resources required for storage of shortened URLs and any dev maintenance must be so miniscule to be a rounding error to a rounding error on any budget anywhere in the company.
What can possibly be the motivation for this? I see no rationale for it in the linked post.
Google already has severe trust issues with anything they launch. They hurt themselves because people expect whatever is being launched to be abandoned so why invest in it? Reputation matters.
- nvch 1y agoMaybe it's for the better. They are very clear and consecutive in their intentions, leaving no room for doubt.
- rickdeckard 1y agoIf I remember correctly, one of the purposes for goo.gl was for Google to get metrics on how such direct-links spread "out of band" and how often they were opened (as they would direct people to pages without Google acting as intermediary). I guess Chrome metrics and URL-suffixes now answer this better (and so they probably failed to justify the internal budget to keep it)...
- tracker1 1y agoThey simply don't care about anything that isn't making Billions a year. Domains was profitable and IMO one of the best domain experiences online and they still sold it off. Google could easily afford to keep existing short links working indefinitely and simply not allow new entries... it's a simple KV lookup and redirect. Even with billions of links, hardly any overhead.