3 ms·

"This was not a public-relations stunt. At all." Please. Why exactly should anyone have any trust in such a statement from people who shut down their service

"This was not a public-relations stunt. At all." Please. Why exactly should anyone have any trust in such a statement from people who shut down their service with little or no advance warning, but could bring it back up "indefinitely" after some "appeals"?

Banzai10 17y ago
Actually they didn't shutdown their servers, they gave a warning that they would be shutting down by the end of the year.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  True. I guess I was one of the people thrown by their "effective immediately" notice that they had to clarify, and I hadn't seen the clarification. It was only a partial shutdown. Still, I remain skeptical; this company hasn't earned much trust from me.
- tlrobinson 17y ago
  They shut down everything except redirects for existing URLs. You couldn't create new URLs, or view statistics of your URLs.
Kadin 17y ago
They weren't shutting down their service; they were actually being very responsible about it -- they were going to stop taking new URLs for redirection, but continue to maintain the previously-created ones until the end of the year. It's not like they suddenly announced "we're pulling the plug, screw you all." It seemed like a considered decision, made from a position where they could afford to wind down the service over 6 months. I think their decision to not shut down may be frankly irresponsible. Their reasons for closing seemed fair: bit.ly has a monopoly on URL-shortening due to Twitter; there's really not a market for more than one or two URL-shortening services; there's no clear way to monetize URL-shortening unless you're the dominant player (and can sell stats); any sale to a third party risked turning the service into something evil that they had ethical problems with; keeping the service open would just burn money and effort better spent on other things. All, to my mind, valid reasons for closing. Deciding to reopen (or not close) because a bunch of people complained -- people who aren't going to solve any of those fundamental issues -- that seems like the questionable decision. They were doing the right thing, but seemingly got talked out of it. It doesn't make sense.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  1) Suddenly not taking new URLs is a partial shutdown. 2) It is a questionable decision that doesn't make much sense. One of the few scenarios that seems remotely sensible is that this was an attempt to attract attention, particularly from investors who might be interested in a service with such an enthusiastic following that they'd "appeal" to the company to keep it going. 3) If not investors, then buyers: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/10/trim-cuts-off-bitlys-301works-idea-wants-to-sell/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/10/trim-cuts-off-bitlys-30...
- alain94040 17y ago
  there's no clear way to monetize URL-shortening unless you're the dominant player (and can sell stats); How much money is Google making from selling all the stats that they gathered on people's behaviors, cicks, etc.? The problem with URL shorteners is that there is no space to put ads.

Banzai10 17y ago

Actually they didn't shutdown their servers, they gave a warning that they would be shutting down by the end of the year.

Semiapies 17y ago
True. I guess I was one of the people thrown by their "effective immediately" notice that they had to clarify, and I hadn't seen the clarification. It was only a partial shutdown. Still, I remain skeptical; this company hasn't earned much trust from me.
tlrobinson 17y ago
They shut down everything except redirects for existing URLs. You couldn't create new URLs, or view statistics of your URLs.

Kadin 17y ago

They weren't shutting down their service; they were actually being very responsible about it -- they were going to stop taking new URLs for redirection, but continue to maintain the previously-created ones until the end of the year. It's not like they suddenly announced "we're pulling the plug, screw you all." It seemed like a considered decision, made from a position where they could afford to wind down the service over 6 months. I think their decision to not shut down may be frankly irresponsible. Their reasons for closing seemed fair: bit.ly has a monopoly on URL-shortening due to Twitter; there's really not a market for more than one or two URL-shortening services; there's no clear way to monetize URL-shortening unless you're the dominant player (and can sell stats); any sale to a third party risked turning the service into something evil that they had ethical problems with; keeping the service open would just burn money and effort better spent on other things. All, to my mind, valid reasons for closing. Deciding to reopen (or not close) because a bunch of people complained -- people who aren't going to solve any of those fundamental issues -- that seems like the questionable decision. They were doing the right thing, but seemingly got talked out of it. It doesn't make sense.

Semiapies 17y ago
1) Suddenly not taking new URLs is a partial shutdown. 2) It is a questionable decision that doesn't make much sense. One of the few scenarios that seems remotely sensible is that this was an attempt to attract attention, particularly from investors who might be interested in a service with such an enthusiastic following that they'd "appeal" to the company to keep it going. 3) If not investors, then buyers: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/10/trim-cuts-off-bitlys-301works-idea-wants-to-sell/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/10/trim-cuts-off-bitlys-30...
alain94040 17y ago
there's no clear way to monetize URL-shortening unless you're the dominant player (and can sell stats); How much money is Google making from selling all the stats that they gathered on people's behaviors, cicks, etc.? The problem with URL shorteners is that there is no space to put ads.