5 ms·

Edit: The parent comment was flagkilled, but he was ranting about how Google should be expected to keep Google Code (and their other failed services) on life su

by gtaylor 12y ago

Edit: The parent comment was flagkilled, but he was ranting about how Google should be expected to keep Google Code (and their other failed services) on life support indefinitely out of the kindness of their heart, because negative public perception. This is pretty ridiculous. It is a free service, sustained only by how long corporate wants to foot the bill. This is why it's so important to keep in mind how sustainable your dependencies are longer term (if having to move away from them would be such a big deal). Not only that, but Google Code lost the mindshare battle and hasn't been getting much development attention for some time now. It has fallen way behind, is now sub-par, and there has been a mass exodus of projects away from it. It had a nice year or two, but it's time to put it down. It's simple: Stop wasting developer manpower, money, and time on something that no longer offers much utility. Close shop, figure out how those resources could be better spent doing things that are useful.

f055 12y ago
Although you are correct, it's more a matter of perception / PR image. If we are looking at Google that shuts down pretty popular projects (Reader, Code, and now G+ seems to be shifting) or pretty innovative projects (Wave, Glass) then how should we feel about becoming dependant on/involved in Google products? What if Gmail switches to paid-only model? What if the next-big-Google-thing will be closed down after a year, again? What if free Google Apps will close down, and only paid version exists? What's the point of getting involved into any free Google stuff? What's the point of using Google at all?
- gtaylor 12y ago
  > Although you are correct, it's more a matter of perception / PR image. If we are looking at Google that shuts down pretty popular projects (Reader, Code, and now G+ seems to be shifting) or pretty innovative projects (Wave, Glass) then how should we feel about becoming dependant on/involved in Google products? You just listed a bunch of projects that failed to get traction or lost mindshare battles. I expect an innovator to move on from failures, which is what all of your examples are. Reader: Failure, Google Code: Failure, G+: Failure, Wave: Failure. The reasons for each failure differ, but said reasons are irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that Google attempted something, maybe enjoyed a little bit of success, but the results didn't meet their expectations. Rather than continue running these things with skeleton crews (to what effect?), they've done the right thing and closed them down. The only exception is Glass, which was an experiment that already is impacting other current and future products. It never had a guaranteed future. It never reached consumer "1.0".
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > I expect an innovator to move on from failures That's great if you are an investor or employee, but if you are a user it kind of sucks. Google just needs to be up front about it (and maybe they are): We make no commitment to supporting this application or maintaining it as is. We might make radical changes, we might shut it down. If we do shut it down, we'll warn you at least 9 months ahead of time. I'm not going to invest much in those applications, but others might.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      I gotta be frank here: If you expect anyone in the tech world, Google or otherwise, to support a non-paid product past the point it's obviously declining in user base (IE obvious to not just internal users, but to external ones), for more than a few years, you are just not going to use anyone's products ;) Google code is mostly irrelevant to this calculus, because it was not ever meant to make money for anyone, but i think you are a little harsh here. Don't get me wrong, as a user, I would love to have the stuff i want to use supported forever. But it's unrealistic.
      - gress 12y ago
        The problem is that Google represented itself as an altruistic supporter of open-source. People trusted it because it deliberately cultivated the impression of being more responsible than the default 'duh capitalism' mentality it now represents. Google is suffering the reputational damage it deserves - not because it is now behaving any differently from other corporations but because it has betrayed the promise that it would.
    - gtaylor 12y ago
      > Google just needs to be up front about it (and maybe they are) Nobody launches a new product and guarantees "If this doesn't work out, we'll keep it around indefinitely on life support". You don't start a new effort expecting failure. If it doesn't end up working out, it'll be closed down. Google's failures are just a lot more public than whatever side business many of us may take a stab at. This isn't unique to Google. Failures need to be learned from and culled. We as a small business/startup oriented crowd should understand that more than most. I've had to kill off more projects than I'd like to admit because I didn't want to spend the time/money on what I perceived to be failures. Not that failure is bad. Like Google, I've learned a ton from my unsuccessful projects.
lnanek2 12y ago
Honestly, I think he was right. Google has a really bad image problem right now where lots of people don't want to get involved with their projects because Google will most likely kill the project just like Reader and Glass. See my couple of wasted Google Glass devices that will never see an Android update again. Do you think I'll ever buy a Google Android product after they wasted $3k of mine? Do you think I'll buy any more of their tech device blunders like cars or thermostats or other devices? Likely not. It's well established they'll just drop them soon after release anyway. They are getting the same reputation for software services. There are lots of startups that would have been happy with Reader's usage numbers besides, so they aren't even making decisions everyone would agree are good kills. With my Android apps, any time someone sends me a bug report or a complaint, I refund them immediately and thank them for the feedback. Does this make me the most money? Hell no. But I have a lot of friendly users who email me constantly with improvements and who aren't mad I'm ripping them off or screwing them over. That's worth a lot too. Google is saving money to screw over users with this Google Code decision and it's definitely not one I agree with.
- gtaylor 12y ago
  > Honestly, I think he was right. Google has a really bad image problem right now where lots of people don't want to get involved with their projects because Google will most likely kill the project just like Reader and Glass. Again, these are two very niche projects. Reader was a niche within a niche. Glass was an experiment that a tiny subset of the population ever even touched first-hand. It never even reached a "1.0". As early adopters and as technologists, it's easy for us to get upset when our favorite pet project gets killed. But in the end, Reader failed to get any kind of traction beyond its niche. Glass ran into a buzzsaw of negative perception, legislation, and media twisting, in addition to technical challenges. The lessons learned from Glass will be applied to present and future efforts.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Killing reader was a bad idea imo. Yes, it was niche but it was social, attracted influencers and measured relevance. Glass is clearly very much alive.
pbreit 12y ago
I don't think "free" has anything to do with it. In fact, the reason this is not a big deal is specifically because there exist at least 2 superior free options.

by gtaylor 12y ago

f055 12y ago

Although you are correct, it's more a matter of perception / PR image. If we are looking at Google that shuts down pretty popular projects (Reader, Code, and now G+ seems to be shifting) or pretty innovative projects (Wave, Glass) then how should we feel about becoming dependant on/involved in Google products? What if Gmail switches to paid-only model? What if the next-big-Google-thing will be closed down after a year, again? What if free Google Apps will close down, and only paid version exists? What's the point of getting involved into any free Google stuff? What's the point of using Google at all?

gtaylor 12y ago
> Although you are correct, it's more a matter of perception / PR image. If we are looking at Google that shuts down pretty popular projects (Reader, Code, and now G+ seems to be shifting) or pretty innovative projects (Wave, Glass) then how should we feel about becoming dependant on/involved in Google products? You just listed a bunch of projects that failed to get traction or lost mindshare battles. I expect an innovator to move on from failures, which is what all of your examples are. Reader: Failure, Google Code: Failure, G+: Failure, Wave: Failure. The reasons for each failure differ, but said reasons are irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that Google attempted something, maybe enjoyed a little bit of success, but the results didn't meet their expectations. Rather than continue running these things with skeleton crews (to what effect?), they've done the right thing and closed them down. The only exception is Glass, which was an experiment that already is impacting other current and future products. It never had a guaranteed future. It never reached consumer "1.0".
- hackuser 12y ago
  > I expect an innovator to move on from failures That's great if you are an investor or employee, but if you are a user it kind of sucks. Google just needs to be up front about it (and maybe they are): We make no commitment to supporting this application or maintaining it as is. We might make radical changes, we might shut it down. If we do shut it down, we'll warn you at least 9 months ahead of time. I'm not going to invest much in those applications, but others might.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    I gotta be frank here: If you expect anyone in the tech world, Google or otherwise, to support a non-paid product past the point it's obviously declining in user base (IE obvious to not just internal users, but to external ones), for more than a few years, you are just not going to use anyone's products ;) Google code is mostly irrelevant to this calculus, because it was not ever meant to make money for anyone, but i think you are a little harsh here. Don't get me wrong, as a user, I would love to have the stuff i want to use supported forever. But it's unrealistic.
    - gress 12y ago
      The problem is that Google represented itself as an altruistic supporter of open-source. People trusted it because it deliberately cultivated the impression of being more responsible than the default 'duh capitalism' mentality it now represents. Google is suffering the reputational damage it deserves - not because it is now behaving any differently from other corporations but because it has betrayed the promise that it would.
  - gtaylor 12y ago
    > Google just needs to be up front about it (and maybe they are) Nobody launches a new product and guarantees "If this doesn't work out, we'll keep it around indefinitely on life support". You don't start a new effort expecting failure. If it doesn't end up working out, it'll be closed down. Google's failures are just a lot more public than whatever side business many of us may take a stab at. This isn't unique to Google. Failures need to be learned from and culled. We as a small business/startup oriented crowd should understand that more than most. I've had to kill off more projects than I'd like to admit because I didn't want to spend the time/money on what I perceived to be failures. Not that failure is bad. Like Google, I've learned a ton from my unsuccessful projects.

lnanek2 12y ago

Honestly, I think he was right. Google has a really bad image problem right now where lots of people don't want to get involved with their projects because Google will most likely kill the project just like Reader and Glass. See my couple of wasted Google Glass devices that will never see an Android update again. Do you think I'll ever buy a Google Android product after they wasted $3k of mine? Do you think I'll buy any more of their tech device blunders like cars or thermostats or other devices? Likely not. It's well established they'll just drop them soon after release anyway. They are getting the same reputation for software services. There are lots of startups that would have been happy with Reader's usage numbers besides, so they aren't even making decisions everyone would agree are good kills. With my Android apps, any time someone sends me a bug report or a complaint, I refund them immediately and thank them for the feedback. Does this make me the most money? Hell no. But I have a lot of friendly users who email me constantly with improvements and who aren't mad I'm ripping them off or screwing them over. That's worth a lot too. Google is saving money to screw over users with this Google Code decision and it's definitely not one I agree with.

gtaylor 12y ago
> Honestly, I think he was right. Google has a really bad image problem right now where lots of people don't want to get involved with their projects because Google will most likely kill the project just like Reader and Glass. Again, these are two very niche projects. Reader was a niche within a niche. Glass was an experiment that a tiny subset of the population ever even touched first-hand. It never even reached a "1.0". As early adopters and as technologists, it's easy for us to get upset when our favorite pet project gets killed. But in the end, Reader failed to get any kind of traction beyond its niche. Glass ran into a buzzsaw of negative perception, legislation, and media twisting, in addition to technical challenges. The lessons learned from Glass will be applied to present and future efforts.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pbreit 12y ago
  Killing reader was a bad idea imo. Yes, it was niche but it was social, attracted influencers and measured relevance. Glass is clearly very much alive.

pbreit 12y ago

I don't think "free" has anything to do with it. In fact, the reason this is not a big deal is specifically because there exist at least 2 superior free options.