3 ms·

I 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 shutdo

I 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 ago
It 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 ago
At 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 ago
  Except 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 ago
    Sorry, 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 ago
I 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 ago
Because 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.

gtaylor 12y ago

It 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 ago

At 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 ago
Except 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 ago
  Sorry, 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 ago

I 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 ago

Because 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.