4 ms·

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 no

by 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.
    - hackuser 12y ago
      In fact, many vendors, especially in the enterprise market and physical goods, stand behind what they sell through their products' lifetimes. As I mentioned elsewhere, IBM supported OS/2, a marketplace failure, for ~16 years. Buy a washer from Sears; even if that model doesn't sell well, they will support yours. Consumer and 'free' software is the exception, and it's a recent exception with rapid release schedules. It's just shifting the costs from the vendor (maintaining old products) to the consumer (changing/upgrading).

by f055 12y ago

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.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    In fact, many vendors, especially in the enterprise market and physical goods, stand behind what they sell through their products' lifetimes. As I mentioned elsewhere, IBM supported OS/2, a marketplace failure, for ~16 years. Buy a washer from Sears; even if that model doesn't sell well, they will support yours. Consumer and 'free' software is the exception, and it's a recent exception with rapid release schedules. It's just shifting the costs from the vendor (maintaining old products) to the consumer (changing/upgrading).