6 ms·

Reader derangement syndrome strikes again. Summarizing the thread, if you're are an early adopter of anything, you run the risk it won't be here in a year. That

Reader derangement syndrome strikes again. Summarizing the thread, if you're are an early adopter of anything, you run the risk it won't be here in a year. That's what we tolerate in the tech arena, start ups throwing lots of good and dumb ideas at the wall to see what sticks, evolution in action. How many people who built their business on Facebook's F8 platform went belly up due to changes? Google is a company that is constantly experimenting with new products and services. Yes, some of them will fail. That's the cost of innovation. It's really sad we've forgotten that. Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. If you're risk averse, leave the opportunity to others to jump in and place their bets if Helpouts is a winning platform for them.

derefr 13y ago
> It's really sad we've forgotten that. I don't think anyone's forgotten; we forgive small companies for trying-and-failing to do something cool all the time. For some reason, though, we (as an angry mob) seem to be incapable of allowing big companies to try-and-fail at exactly the same sorts of things. (Personally, I think it might have something to do with how ancestral-environment humans saw leaders making promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)
- k__ 13y ago
  I think it's because we expect start-ups to fail, most of them do. Big companies fail, too, but less often, because they once were part of the few start-ups who didn't fail. If you want high-end and are happy to live with the risk, you go to a start-up. If you want safety and are happy to live with a more conservative approach, you go to a big company. If the big one fails, you feel robbed of your safety.
  - derefr 13y ago
    But why can't people differentiate between "big company serving their regular audience" and "big company trying something new"? The something-new ventures, no matter how hard they fail, never affect the ability of the company to deliver on their something-safe ventures. For example, no matter how much of a flop a new version of Ubuntu is, it won't stop them from supporting the LTS versions.
grey-area 13y ago
Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. It's certainly an acceptable risk for Google and other companies like FB - the short-term cost of innovation for Google is pretty close to zero. The long-term cost of reputation is perhaps something they're only now starting to realise. Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me. I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds. The issue is how easily these services can be closed, not how long they last, in fact if they last longer it's worse for the users involved if they are suddenly shut down. Now free services for life doesn't seem like such a good deal, because the terms are that they owe you nothing and life may equal 2 months, 1 year or 10, it's impossible to know. I didn't use Reader or participate in the Reader drama and feel it's a bit over-egged, but there is certainly a reputational cost to closing mainstream services or modifying them without consulting those who use them as Apple, FB, MS, Google, Twitter et al do regularly. This doesn't really apply if you have 10 users, but if you have 10 million and an ecosystem it can become important. Building on top of these platforms like FB or G+ is in my opinion very risk for other businesses, so depending on something like helpouts is a huge risk for the people who might use it to actually sell/provide services and build a reputation, but very little short-term risk for Google.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
swombat 13y ago
The problem is not a history of killing failed product, it's a history of killing products that everyone is actually using, without giving it as much of a chance as a company of Google's resources might be expected to, for political reasons rather than practical reasons. As a couple of good examples: Google Wave was created to give the Rasmussen brothers (creators of Google Maps) something high-profile to do. Then it was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year. Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it. In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project. Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions. Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.
- cma 13y ago
  Wave was really laggy and required a special chrome frame plugin to run in IE. It was laggy even in chrome.
- mistermann 13y ago
  Did anyone continue to run with the Google Wave idea? I'd be interested in using a tool like that, it showed a lot of promise.
  - myko 13y ago
    Yes, Apache: http://incubator.apache.org/wave/ http://incubator.apache.org/wave/
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Part of the problem is also in the way that Google kills things. They generally don't attempt to sell it, open it up, or spin it off, etc. You just wake up one day and it's dead (or announced as soon-to-be so). Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months. There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google. It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.
qq66 13y ago
Having a product disappear while you're using it is more of a risk when you invest a lot of your time into it. If Gmail disappeared with a month's notice, a lot of people would be forced to spend hours or days migrating their data and settings. If Google Search disappeared overnight, people could just use Bing. This seems fairly transactional and thus fairly low-risk, although on the help provider side there's probably a reputation system which will become meaningless when the product is shut down.

derefr 13y ago

> It's really sad we've forgotten that. I don't think anyone's forgotten; we forgive small companies for trying-and-failing to do something cool all the time. For some reason, though, we (as an angry mob) seem to be incapable of allowing big companies to try-and-fail at exactly the same sorts of things. (Personally, I think it might have something to do with how ancestral-environment humans saw leaders making promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)

k__ 13y ago
I think it's because we expect start-ups to fail, most of them do. Big companies fail, too, but less often, because they once were part of the few start-ups who didn't fail. If you want high-end and are happy to live with the risk, you go to a start-up. If you want safety and are happy to live with a more conservative approach, you go to a big company. If the big one fails, you feel robbed of your safety.
- derefr 13y ago
  But why can't people differentiate between "big company serving their regular audience" and "big company trying something new"? The something-new ventures, no matter how hard they fail, never affect the ability of the company to deliver on their something-safe ventures. For example, no matter how much of a flop a new version of Ubuntu is, it won't stop them from supporting the LTS versions.

grey-area 13y ago

Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. It's certainly an acceptable risk for Google and other companies like FB - the short-term cost of innovation for Google is pretty close to zero. The long-term cost of reputation is perhaps something they're only now starting to realise. Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me. I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.

icebraining 13y ago
Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds. The issue is how easily these services can be closed, not how long they last, in fact if they last longer it's worse for the users involved if they are suddenly shut down. Now free services for life doesn't seem like such a good deal, because the terms are that they owe you nothing and life may equal 2 months, 1 year or 10, it's impossible to know. I didn't use Reader or participate in the Reader drama and feel it's a bit over-egged, but there is certainly a reputational cost to closing mainstream services or modifying them without consulting those who use them as Apple, FB, MS, Google, Twitter et al do regularly. This doesn't really apply if you have 10 users, but if you have 10 million and an ecosystem it can become important. Building on top of these platforms like FB or G+ is in my opinion very risk for other businesses, so depending on something like helpouts is a huge risk for the people who might use it to actually sell/provide services and build a reputation, but very little short-term risk for Google.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

swombat 13y ago

The problem is not a history of killing failed product, it's a history of killing products that everyone is actually using, without giving it as much of a chance as a company of Google's resources might be expected to, for political reasons rather than practical reasons. As a couple of good examples: Google Wave was created to give the Rasmussen brothers (creators of Google Maps) something high-profile to do. Then it was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year. Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it. In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project. Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions. Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.

cma 13y ago
Wave was really laggy and required a special chrome frame plugin to run in IE. It was laggy even in chrome.
mistermann 13y ago
Did anyone continue to run with the Google Wave idea? I'd be interested in using a tool like that, it showed a lot of promise.
- myko 13y ago
  Yes, Apache: http://incubator.apache.org/wave/ http://incubator.apache.org/wave/

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Part of the problem is also in the way that Google kills things. They generally don't attempt to sell it, open it up, or spin it off, etc. You just wake up one day and it's dead (or announced as soon-to-be so). Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months. There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google. It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.

qq66 13y ago

Having a product disappear while you're using it is more of a risk when you invest a lot of your time into it. If Gmail disappeared with a month's notice, a lot of people would be forced to spend hours or days migrating their data and settings. If Google Search disappeared overnight, people could just use Bing. This seems fairly transactional and thus fairly low-risk, although on the help provider side there's probably a reputation system which will become meaningless when the product is shut down.