4 ms·
They kind of get a bad rap for this because of how large and visible they are. The funny thing is that many of the people here on HN have worked on projects tha
by gtaylor 12y ago
They kind of get a bad rap for this because of how large and visible they are. The funny thing is that many of the people here on HN have worked on projects that had very finite lifetimes as well, often closing them down for some of the same reasons.
Someone has to invest the time and money to keep services running, even if only limping along. Google likes to experiment and test the waters. It's part of why they've been so successful. I hope they keep killing off their underperforming/underused services so they can keep on pushing other things forward.
However, closing down stagnant projects is very different from locking down access to previously open APIs (Google Maps). Since we're discussing the closure of Google Code, I won't get distracted with that controversial topic.
- jdmichal 12y agoI also find a certain level of humor in the oft-espoused "release and pivot" ideology, accompanied with the pleas for mercy found in these Google product shutdown threads. What is different? Why is Google not supposed to release and pivot like everyone else?
- gtaylor 12y agoIt is puzzling, but I think their rapid ascension has led to some people setting their expectations for Google too high. Others seem to hold them to some golden moral standard (of their own design), for some reason. In the end, they are a for-profit business. Not a charity.
- zorpner 12y agoAt least from my perspective, the problem is that Google sometimes releases into already-existing fields at a price point no one can compete with, absorbs the entire market, then pivots away. This is pretty destructive behavior, and I think fundamentally different from entering a field in which you intend to try to run a business (as opposed to subsidizing your entry into the field with profits from elsewhere in the company in order to undercut current players).
- robbrit 12y agoExcept in this case they didn't absorb the market and then pivot away. The market moved away from them and consequently they shut down a service that nobody really uses anymore.
- zorpner 12y agoSorry, should have made it more clear that I wasn't talking about Google Code specifically, but was responding to the parent comment regarding "release and pivot".
- bbcbasic 12y agoI think it is because of the side effect (can it be called an externalized cost?) to developers wanting to use existing open source code and not being able to find it. Google code is used by a lot of people. Whereas an early start-up with 100 users selling a product with not much lock-in can pivot without too much side effect. The users know they are dealing with a start-up and may expect it.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoBecause at some point you stop being a feature of the landscape, and you become the landscape - or a big part of it, at least. That's where GitHub is now. If GitHub closed in the same way, that would be... unfortunate. That seems to be where Google Code was trying to go. For whatever reason, it never quite made it. But if you're part of the scenery - and Google Code was, for a while - and not just a shack hardly anyone visits, a burden of responsibility goes with that.
- makomk 12y agoYes, and the projects that people on HN have worked on that have had very finite lifetimes get a very negative reaction on here too, for much the same reason. In fact I regularly see people suggesting that it reflects badly on startups as a whole and that you shouldn't trust them with your data whenever one pulls a stunt like this.