6 ms·

As opposed to options and products provided by other companies, that are guaranteed to be around forever and ever.

by moskie 13y ago

nivla 13y ago
>As opposed to options and products provided by other companies... I think GP is rather trying to make an assessment based off Google's history of closing down services. Similar to I rather trust a stranger than a known con-artist, while realizing the possibility that either could walk away with your money.
- ollyculverhouse 13y ago
  Surely a good (read focused) company should ALWAYS close down more products than it starts?
  - garethadams 13y ago
    You mean if a company has started 10 products in its lifetime, it should close down those 10 products and also 2 other company's products?
- csallen 13y ago
  There is a long, long history of other companies and products closing down, too.
  - nivla 13y ago
    >There is a long, long history of other companies and products closing down, too. Yes but it also natural for human beings to follow: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
    - csallen 13y ago
      My point is that we tend to look at the shutting down of companies/products/services as some sort of exceptional and underhanded decision. Rather, we should see it for what it really is: the norm. Most startups die and most products fail, eventually. It's not some sort of habitual bad behavior that companies selectively choose to participate in. So judging Google as a repeat (and thus untrustworthy) offender is unfair, and unrealistic, too, because you're just as likely to get burned elsewhere.
      - nivla 13y ago
        > Rather, we should see it for what it really is: the norm. I don't know maybe I am an exception but I see companies shutting down products far from the norm. I normally tend to trust bigger companies with stability and invest most of my energy in them. I still have my hotmail/yahoo/aol accounts from the mid 90s working just fine. Google is an exception. It feels like they are punching themselves when walking forward. Their current goal is to provide a comfortable integrated experience. Even though from a business perspective, it makes sense to shut down unviable products and services, from a consumer point of view it only causes frustration and loss of trust, which ironically is quiet opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Ask yourself: Keeping all other variables constant, which would you trust to be around longer: Google Drive or Dropbox? Google App Engine or AWS? Google Wallet or Paypal? Google+ or Facebook?
        csallen 13y ago
        I'd choose Dropbox, AWS, Paypal, and Facebook over all of those Google alternatives. But that's not because I believe they are "trustworthy", nor is it because I believe Google has already "fooled" us. Rather, it's because of the economics of the situation. None of those products are Google's core competency. They're almost all imitation products that are extremely late to the game and that, consequently, have a relatively high chance of failure. On the flip side, AWS, Dropbox, Paypal, and Facebook are all high-revenue market leaders with practically no chance of failing any time soon and owners who can't be enticed to sell out. If you were to replace these products with newer, riskier, less-profitable alternatives from smaller companies, I'd have picked the Google option every time. Stability, profitability, and market dominance are the primary reasons I trust products to last, not company track record. If Dropbox made a search engine, Amazon made a webmail service, or Facebook made a mobile OS, would you trust any of them to outlast their Google counterparts?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

As opposed to options and products provided by other companies, that are guaranteed to be around forever and ever.

by moskie 13y ago

As opposed to options and products provided by other companies, that are guaranteed to be around forever and ever.

nivla 13y ago

>As opposed to options and products provided by other companies... I think GP is rather trying to make an assessment based off Google's history of closing down services. Similar to I rather trust a stranger than a known con-artist, while realizing the possibility that either could walk away with your money.

ollyculverhouse 13y ago
Surely a good (read focused) company should ALWAYS close down more products than it starts?
- garethadams 13y ago
  You mean if a company has started 10 products in its lifetime, it should close down those 10 products and also 2 other company's products?
csallen 13y ago
There is a long, long history of other companies and products closing down, too.
- nivla 13y ago
  >There is a long, long history of other companies and products closing down, too. Yes but it also natural for human beings to follow: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
  - csallen 13y ago
    My point is that we tend to look at the shutting down of companies/products/services as some sort of exceptional and underhanded decision. Rather, we should see it for what it really is: the norm. Most startups die and most products fail, eventually. It's not some sort of habitual bad behavior that companies selectively choose to participate in. So judging Google as a repeat (and thus untrustworthy) offender is unfair, and unrealistic, too, because you're just as likely to get burned elsewhere.
    - nivla 13y ago
      > Rather, we should see it for what it really is: the norm. I don't know maybe I am an exception but I see companies shutting down products far from the norm. I normally tend to trust bigger companies with stability and invest most of my energy in them. I still have my hotmail/yahoo/aol accounts from the mid 90s working just fine. Google is an exception. It feels like they are punching themselves when walking forward. Their current goal is to provide a comfortable integrated experience. Even though from a business perspective, it makes sense to shut down unviable products and services, from a consumer point of view it only causes frustration and loss of trust, which ironically is quiet opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Ask yourself: Keeping all other variables constant, which would you trust to be around longer: Google Drive or Dropbox? Google App Engine or AWS? Google Wallet or Paypal? Google+ or Facebook?
      - csallen 13y ago
        I'd choose Dropbox, AWS, Paypal, and Facebook over all of those Google alternatives. But that's not because I believe they are "trustworthy", nor is it because I believe Google has already "fooled" us. Rather, it's because of the economics of the situation. None of those products are Google's core competency. They're almost all imitation products that are extremely late to the game and that, consequently, have a relatively high chance of failure. On the flip side, AWS, Dropbox, Paypal, and Facebook are all high-revenue market leaders with practically no chance of failing any time soon and owners who can't be enticed to sell out. If you were to replace these products with newer, riskier, less-profitable alternatives from smaller companies, I'd have picked the Google option every time. Stability, profitability, and market dominance are the primary reasons I trust products to last, not company track record. If Dropbox made a search engine, Amazon made a webmail service, or Facebook made a mobile OS, would you trust any of them to outlast their Google counterparts?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]