This week’s dead Google product is Google Trips(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
This week’s dead Google product is Google Trips
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/this-weeks-dead-google-product-is-google-trips-may-it-rest-in-peace/
133 comments
The offline content component of Google Trips is the best part though.
That's true... but any Google product that focuses on being "good offline" is fighting against the momentum of every other part of Google.
Not true, Google Maps has added offline storage over the years that is quite helpful, and the feature has gotten better.
Google Docs for Chrome can be used offline as well.
Google Docs for Chrome can be used offline as well.
Somewhat better, maybe. It now allows me to download an area large enough to fit my entire home town. Still doesn't allow an entire country or even more, probably cause of bigger file size / more detail than the competitor i use.
But most importantly: It still requires me to sign into a google account to download an area.
But most importantly: It still requires me to sign into a google account to download an area.
Google Maps offline has saved me a lot of headaches when traveling
I still don’t understand why they implemented this but it works very well. I wish OSM maps had the same level of offline search and routing.
I mean it's great to have a backup map if you go outside of cellular coverage. It works well overseas too, so you can save data and preload the map, or just use it offline entirely while you're travelling.
> I still don’t understand why they implemented this but it works very well. I wish OSM maps had the same level of offline search and routing.
What do you mean? Don't most OSM map apps have offline search and routing for any areas you have downloaded?
What do you mean? Don't most OSM map apps have offline search and routing for any areas you have downloaded?
All the apps I have seen have terrible search. In Google I can type in "xxx Street Burbank" and will get a result. In OSM I have to go through state, city, zip and know all that stuff. Much worse than google Maps.
I'm happy google earth is stuck in time and offline. Such a powerful piece of software, like an arcGIS-lite. I get a file tree with folders and subfolders and subsubfolders and points of interests with metadata and notes and layers of everything and anything and I can load other people's content too?? In case you can't tell, it's my favorite google product by far, and they can't ever take it away from me because I have it on my local drive.
They can disable your access. All pictures are downloaded. I wish there was a maps feature too.
It seems like Google exploded pretty quickly, so I bet there were a lot of disconnected apps being developed at the same time. I think as they continue growing they realize that some apps duplicate features, or have features that may be better served from other, bigger apps (in this case, maps may be better suited for some of trips' features).
I worked at Intuit for a bit, and with only a handful of products they were experiencing the same thing. I can only imagine trying to coordinate so many teams across such an enormous organization.
I worked at Intuit for a bit, and with only a handful of products they were experiencing the same thing. I can only imagine trying to coordinate so many teams across such an enormous organization.
In a way Google creating and then killing all these applications is great for other developers looking for a product to create. They don't have to do their now market research, just check how many and how bitterly people complain about Google killing the product.
If people loved Google Trips now is a great time to create your own Trips application and cash in on the people disappointed by Google.
If people loved Google Trips now is a great time to create your own Trips application and cash in on the people disappointed by Google.
How much would people pay for a trips app? I was looking at starting something like that out of college but my market would have been other college students and grads. My impression of the trips market is that you upsell boomers on travel packages (no in-depth market analysis though).
I did keep up some docs around the project, though I'd probably do a full rewrite it's been three years: https://yingw787.github.io/traveltile_docs/
I did keep up some docs around the project, though I'd probably do a full rewrite it's been three years: https://yingw787.github.io/traveltile_docs/
There are multiple ways to get this started, and not all of them have to be direct to consumer.
There are companies who specialize in organising travel, which could be aided by better software.
Personally, I would pay for a travel planning app, but the pricing structure would have to be right since I'm not going to pay for a subscription for something I use infrequently.
I think the key thing here is that travel is already very expensive, so there is money to be made here in improving the process, but skimming some ad/referral revenue off a large volume is the easiest way to do so.
I looked for a travel planning app when I went to Mexico City last year and was generally not impressed with the offerings, so I just ended up pinning everything I wanted to do in Google Maps.
There are companies who specialize in organising travel, which could be aided by better software.
Personally, I would pay for a travel planning app, but the pricing structure would have to be right since I'm not going to pay for a subscription for something I use infrequently.
I think the key thing here is that travel is already very expensive, so there is money to be made here in improving the process, but skimming some ad/referral revenue off a large volume is the easiest way to do so.
I looked for a travel planning app when I went to Mexico City last year and was generally not impressed with the offerings, so I just ended up pinning everything I wanted to do in Google Maps.
To continue with the theme of people paying for things in this area: My wife still buys travel books for cities. Books are definitely not my favourite medium and I would definitely consider paying for the information online.
A travel book will run you 20 bux easy. It will be perceived as super cheap at 10.
How many people would buy a 10$ app for a guidebook for a specific destination (city or country), even if it was infinitely more performant and native than the book.
How many people would buy a 10$ app for a guidebook for a specific destination (city or country), even if it was infinitely more performant and native than the book.
>How much would people pay for a trips app?
TripIt Pro is the standard and costs $49 per year. It's not really for leisure travel but for business/productivity.
TripIt Pro is the standard and costs $49 per year. It's not really for leisure travel but for business/productivity.
I’m not sure why you say it’s for business. I do a lot of business and personal travel and it’s great for both. Organizing trips with friends and family is much easier to coordinate with tripit and my boss couldn’t care less which hotel/flight I’m on.
The pro features specifically is mostly just alerting, not tied to personal/business.
The pro features specifically is mostly just alerting, not tied to personal/business.
I have never used the sharing features much. I say business but perhaps what I mean is frequent travel. I.e. having enough flights and hotels on your calendar that they're hard (or at least a bear) to keep track of.
There are still folks that recommend AAA memberships for leisure travel, and that start at $52/year (plus "admission/activation fees").
On the flipside, I see so many people these days using a wild combination of improv wandering, personal recommendations from Uber drivers, Airbnb (or VRBO or whatever), and Yelp, that I think a lot of leisure planning has gotten sometimes too weird and undirected/semi-directed versus classic trip planning models.
On the flipside, I see so many people these days using a wild combination of improv wandering, personal recommendations from Uber drivers, Airbnb (or VRBO or whatever), and Yelp, that I think a lot of leisure planning has gotten sometimes too weird and undirected/semi-directed versus classic trip planning models.
Weird, maybe. I would say that relying on Yelp or Thrillist or Eater or whatever is the top result on Google still ends up with everyone crowding the same (weird) places.
Not much different from traditional trip planning though, if you are just swapping from "top AAA recommended" (or "top guide book recommended") to "top Yelp recommended". Having a person involved in something like a AAA trip plan added some variety in terms of inter-personal suggestions/customizations. (Or specialized/niche guide books.)
Arguably Yelp has a massive (maybe a bit stalkery) version of that inter-personal suggestions/customizations at your finger tips in that you can come to get a feel for individual reviewers, especially area Elites, and how well their tastes align with yours. It is possible to find interestingly curated lists of places in an area if you work at it, which isn't that different than the guide book era (though maybe weirder). Certainly not as convenient as paying someone else to do all that trip planning work.
Arguably Yelp has a massive (maybe a bit stalkery) version of that inter-personal suggestions/customizations at your finger tips in that you can come to get a feel for individual reviewers, especially area Elites, and how well their tastes align with yours. It is possible to find interestingly curated lists of places in an area if you work at it, which isn't that different than the guide book era (though maybe weirder). Certainly not as convenient as paying someone else to do all that trip planning work.
I've been using, mostly, travefy, and haven't had the time to check Trip It (I think I tested it years ago, and had something I didn't like)
Is it better?
Is it better?
It hasn’t changed noticeably in the better part of a decade. But it works really well for me (albeit not the prettiest app in the world)
TripIt already has that market pretty much taken care of
Except TripIt hasn't seemed to have made any advances in their product in 5+ years. (Getting acquired by Concur certainly didn't help that.) It feels like it's 10 years old, and I'd LOVE to find a good competitor.
Someone upthread made a good point that TripIt being for business travelers. There might be room for a simplified app for personal use.
I mentioned in another comment that I've been working on something targeted more at the personal vacation space: https://www.naverator.com
TripIt is good for business travelers and works for personal, but it's very utilitarian. I definitely see space in the market for something more visual & pleasure-oriented.
TripIt is good for business travelers and works for personal, but it's very utilitarian. I definitely see space in the market for something more visual & pleasure-oriented.
This is a good point. I was very annoyed when Reader was shut down but found Feedly and gladly pay monthly for their service.
What would you want in a better trip planning app? Looks like availability offline is key.
Then sell it to Google, you retire rich, they kill it again.., cycle goes on.
PS: happened with Picasa.
PS: happened with Picasa.
Wait, seriously? First they killed Inbox, which helpfully aggregated trip emails into one place, upon which a bunch of folks told me to try Trips; now they kill Trips in quick succession? I had dozens of trips organized very nicely in Inbox...
Ugh. And I’m still rather unwilling to hand over my email to a third party. Is there any nice way to organize trips anymore?
Ugh. And I’m still rather unwilling to hand over my email to a third party. Is there any nice way to organize trips anymore?
They are ending Trips because the functionality has been rolled into Google Travel. You can access your trips at https://google.com/travel.
Well, I can't:
[1] Google Maps won't even let me store my home address without also opting-in; it worked fine without it for years.
To see your trips and travel research, turn on these settings
Web & app activity Off
[1] Google Maps won't even let me store my home address without also opting-in; it worked fine without it for years.
Seconded. I have those settings turned off for a reason.
If Trips didn't need them to read my email and parse out the flight/hotel reservations, then this doesn't either.
If Trips didn't need them to read my email and parse out the flight/hotel reservations, then this doesn't either.
I'm in your boat too. This is a completely dead and useless service to me if it wants me to enable these settings.
Which would be fine if it was possible to use while offline, data roaming isn't cheap.
Even disregarding roaming (e.g. travelling within the EU so roaming is free), having offline access makes it easy to plan what places to visit while flying to your destination.
It's also critical if you land late and are scrambling to your next destination and don't have service in this connecting country you are in and there is no wifi at all and your phone is on 10% and the ramshackle destination airport has exactly two plugs, one of them broken. I still print my itineraries and tickets and it's saved me plenty of times when my phone has failed me.
This. Offline support is a must. I got into the habit of screenshotting tickets because airline apps sometimes reload automatically, losing the ticket if you're offline.
Redirects to https://www.google.com/flights ?
On mobile I get the redirect, on my chrome desktop I don't
Same for me.
That page takes 5 seconds to load for me on a 100mbit connection. The advantage of the app is that it works even when network connections are spotty or nonexistent.
[deleted]
How can I see my upcoming trips at that URL? I want to see my hotel itineraries.
I like tripit. You forward emails to it so you don't have to give it access to your inbox. Their app is a bit janky, and the website more so, but I've found it really useful.
> I’m still rather unwilling to hand over my email to a third party.
Didn't you do that already by having a Gmail account?
Didn't you do that already by having a Gmail account?
Still don't understand the Inbox issue, out of all the products. Google literally came out and said its an experimental platform.
And it seemed to be going really well! Why kill it? Everyone loved it, and I can earnestly say that the new version of Gmail hasn't really made it to the level of experience we already had on Inbox.
Since a lot of Googlers read HN, a question for you: How do you all feel about Google's Launch 'n Kill culture?
I did use Trips for travel once and liked it, but hesitated to get invested in it lest it dies one day (today). I approach most new Google products with the same trepidation. On the other hand, I like Google's start-uppy environment and desire to experiment with anything because it could lead to great products like Gmail.
My question is about that circular dependency of a Google product only lasting if it gets popular and a product not getting popular because we think it won't last. If launching is just for annual reviews, and you don't care about the result, I get that but am just curious if any Googlers think the Google Product Stigma needs fixing.
Answer as throwaway if needed.
I did use Trips for travel once and liked it, but hesitated to get invested in it lest it dies one day (today). I approach most new Google products with the same trepidation. On the other hand, I like Google's start-uppy environment and desire to experiment with anything because it could lead to great products like Gmail.
My question is about that circular dependency of a Google product only lasting if it gets popular and a product not getting popular because we think it won't last. If launching is just for annual reviews, and you don't care about the result, I get that but am just curious if any Googlers think the Google Product Stigma needs fixing.
Answer as throwaway if needed.
[google engineer, not a lot of insight into product decisions]
Option one: every product Google makes it supports forever regardless of whether it succeeds or not, where "success" for Google is defined as "billions of users". (Ref all the people laughing at why G+ was still going despite not being popular. [Note: I've read the 'unpopular' thing was disputed; I don't know the actual numbers.]) In this world Google can never attempt a product unless they've verified ahead of time it will become a category-defining product (Chrome, Android, Gmail).
Option two: occasionally some products will test the waters and fail.
I think it's easy to say at the time of a product failure (or even at launch: see the people who scoffed at iPod and Dropbox) to say that it was destined to fail -- it's pretty much guaranteed to happen on HN because people love to shit on and watch other people shit on others' work, for some sad human nature reason -- but difficult to see which of those guaranteed-to-fail products will actually eventually succeed. So option one mostly means you never launch new products.
Big companies faced with this dilemma (the Ciscos or Microsofts or even Facebooks) deal with it by waiting for startups to succeed then buying the result (Whatsapp, Instagram, Github). Famously at Microsoft if you had a good idea the correct way to implement it was to leave, implement as new company, get reacquired. That may become the case at Google too.
Instead Google tries to do option two. I think you could argue about the rate of launch/fail in category two but it doesn't bother me too much. I recall a comment from the Netflix founder about how they had too many successful shows and how that is a problem, that they were playing it too safe.
I also use emacs as my editor because I know it's old enough that it's not gonna change out from under me. When I care about reliability in this way I choose accordingly. Nothing in life in permanent; I evaluate new Google products like I evaluate random startup products, which is to say they may randomly disappear in a year and I factor that in. For example Keep seems like a nice product and I sometimes use it for grocery lists but I'm not gonna put anything important in it (disclaimer: I have absolutely no insider facts about Keep, that is just my feeling about it based on the previous reasoning).
Option one: every product Google makes it supports forever regardless of whether it succeeds or not, where "success" for Google is defined as "billions of users". (Ref all the people laughing at why G+ was still going despite not being popular. [Note: I've read the 'unpopular' thing was disputed; I don't know the actual numbers.]) In this world Google can never attempt a product unless they've verified ahead of time it will become a category-defining product (Chrome, Android, Gmail).
Option two: occasionally some products will test the waters and fail.
I think it's easy to say at the time of a product failure (or even at launch: see the people who scoffed at iPod and Dropbox) to say that it was destined to fail -- it's pretty much guaranteed to happen on HN because people love to shit on and watch other people shit on others' work, for some sad human nature reason -- but difficult to see which of those guaranteed-to-fail products will actually eventually succeed. So option one mostly means you never launch new products.
Big companies faced with this dilemma (the Ciscos or Microsofts or even Facebooks) deal with it by waiting for startups to succeed then buying the result (Whatsapp, Instagram, Github). Famously at Microsoft if you had a good idea the correct way to implement it was to leave, implement as new company, get reacquired. That may become the case at Google too.
Instead Google tries to do option two. I think you could argue about the rate of launch/fail in category two but it doesn't bother me too much. I recall a comment from the Netflix founder about how they had too many successful shows and how that is a problem, that they were playing it too safe.
I also use emacs as my editor because I know it's old enough that it's not gonna change out from under me. When I care about reliability in this way I choose accordingly. Nothing in life in permanent; I evaluate new Google products like I evaluate random startup products, which is to say they may randomly disappear in a year and I factor that in. For example Keep seems like a nice product and I sometimes use it for grocery lists but I'm not gonna put anything important in it (disclaimer: I have absolutely no insider facts about Keep, that is just my feeling about it based on the previous reasoning).
I think we have to question what "success" means here - all the complaints come from people who were satisfied customers of something with a user base that many startups would be happy to have. Is there no room for "not a world takeover but still fundamentally OK" products?
I'm not sure Google has yet figured out how or why it wants to make such products. I don't understand how apps like Trips or Reader get launched given that they seemed destined for at most mild success, but one possibility is that the people behind them at the time promised some sort of larger success to motivate their funding.
True story: I worked on a small Google product where at one point our sales team got a customer interested in a $1m contract, which was a decent amount of money for the scale of our product. But the customer wanted some adjustment in some of the wording. We couldn't get a Google lawyer to even look at the result -- it wasn't worth their time for such a small amount of money -- and I believe lost the customer as a result.
To your specific question, I think there is lots of room in the world for fundamentally OK products -- but outside of Google. I love Pinboard for example (well, I don't use it, but I'm rooting for him).
True story: I worked on a small Google product where at one point our sales team got a customer interested in a $1m contract, which was a decent amount of money for the scale of our product. But the customer wanted some adjustment in some of the wording. We couldn't get a Google lawyer to even look at the result -- it wasn't worth their time for such a small amount of money -- and I believe lost the customer as a result.
To your specific question, I think there is lots of room in the world for fundamentally OK products -- but outside of Google. I love Pinboard for example (well, I don't use it, but I'm rooting for him).
I've always preferred Option 2; this is not a criticism of all that entails. In fact, it's no different from all the other startups and side-projects that rise and fall. Google's unique problem is it's all under 1 roof and each product has the Google name on it. So the shuttering of products unfairly get more moaning and press. There's a branding problem here where long term products are in the same group as experiments and Google needs to categorize them to correct public perception.
Past approaches were putting things under Google Labs or the Eternal Beta. But it needs to exist separately from the long term survivors like Sheets, GDrive, etc.
Past approaches were putting things under Google Labs or the Eternal Beta. But it needs to exist separately from the long term survivors like Sheets, GDrive, etc.
I think Google has experimented in the past with releasing things under separate brands, but it leads to the problem where if you don't mention the host company prominently enough users feel tricked (like all the people who use Instagram without realizing it's just a reskin of Facebook), while if you do mention the host company prominently you fall back into the same trap of user expectation.
Google also has the related problem where if they release even a genuinely uninteresting app (say a grocery shopping list) they'll still have a hundred million people try it out on the first day, so when building the app you have to build for that scale before you're even able to validate the design space. (There was one experiment, I can't remember which right now, which had a small team with didn't do this and then was widely mocked for being slow with "Google can't even make its own apps scale".) Damned if you do, damned if you don't. ...but I imagine the execs wipe their tears away with wads of hundred dollar bills.
Google also has the related problem where if they release even a genuinely uninteresting app (say a grocery shopping list) they'll still have a hundred million people try it out on the first day, so when building the app you have to build for that scale before you're even able to validate the design space. (There was one experiment, I can't remember which right now, which had a small team with didn't do this and then was widely mocked for being slow with "Google can't even make its own apps scale".) Damned if you do, damned if you don't. ...but I imagine the execs wipe their tears away with wads of hundred dollar bills.
Defining success as billions of users gets tossed around a lot, but why is that the dogma? If you can make a product smaller than that and have it be profitable, then what's so bad about that? Is it really so hard to manage that apart from Google's gigantic products?
If success is going to be billions of users then yeah, probably do option 1, because nearly nothing is going to get there. Why not have a pipeline to spin these products off or have them survive with lower expectations?
If success is going to be billions of users then yeah, probably do option 1, because nearly nothing is going to get there. Why not have a pipeline to spin these products off or have them survive with lower expectations?
Opportunity cost seems like the biggest reason. Why devote resources to a project that is merely profitable when they could be working in something that is hugely profitable instead?
Reasonable, but then why launch Inbox in the first place? The best email client possible is not going to displace Gmail on a billions of users scale.
It makes a lot more sense from a corporate gamesmanship perspective. I think the incentives of the typical Google employee (widely believed to heavily value launching new stuff) are not in sync with the company or its users.
It makes a lot more sense from a corporate gamesmanship perspective. I think the incentives of the typical Google employee (widely believed to heavily value launching new stuff) are not in sync with the company or its users.
> why launch Inbox in the first place?
Google didn't launch it, it was a startup that Google acquired for the team, and then killed of Inbox as soon as they could.
Google didn't launch it, it was a startup that Google acquired for the team, and then killed of Inbox as soon as they could.
That doesn’t explain one high profile product that was killed that was universally loved - Google Reader.
But from the writeup, it doesn’t seem like this product was a failure.
But from the writeup, it doesn’t seem like this product was a failure.
I explained the Reader phenomenon here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20116287
(I loved it too.)
(I loved it too.)
This link does not explain Reader.
Let’s look at Apple Podcasts - the app and the directory. It doesn’t make Apple any money, they don’t host any of the podcasts. They just provide an index and once you subscribe to a podcast, the app polls the podcast’s creators website directly. The podcast directory also has a freely available API that is available to any other player.
It is the dominant player and directory. Do you think Apple is going to kill it? Google killed Reader with similar dominance.
I’m not saying Apple is always on the side of the angels. But in this case they have kept their podcast directory maintained since 2005.
It is the dominant player and directory. Do you think Apple is going to kill it? Google killed Reader with similar dominance.
I’m not saying Apple is always on the side of the angels. But in this case they have kept their podcast directory maintained since 2005.
> where "success" for Google is defined as "billions of users"
Why? This how old Microsoft thought and it’s unbelievable that Google is taking their place while they have renewed to “new Microsoft”. I see tons of small stuff coming out of Microsoft these days that lives on despite tiny niche user base. When they do decide to kill product, they seem to be very sensitive, give plenty of time and figure out some migration path. The point is that a lot of dev ops can be automated in 2019. You can comfortably run small products without much overhead. Google seems to be either behind mastering this art or confused. I thought I would never see a day when I say Microsoft is doing better than Google.
Why? This how old Microsoft thought and it’s unbelievable that Google is taking their place while they have renewed to “new Microsoft”. I see tons of small stuff coming out of Microsoft these days that lives on despite tiny niche user base. When they do decide to kill product, they seem to be very sensitive, give plenty of time and figure out some migration path. The point is that a lot of dev ops can be automated in 2019. You can comfortably run small products without much overhead. Google seems to be either behind mastering this art or confused. I thought I would never see a day when I say Microsoft is doing better than Google.
> occasionally some products will test the waters and fail.
Most of the time "fail" just means "fail to become a category-defining product," whereas any other software company would be happy to pull the kind of numbers Google does for its smaller projects. If Google wants to operate like a venture capital firm, investing in many products and seeing most fail to get huge, than that's fine, but they need to consider the negative impact it has on their brand and on all future product launches.
Most of the time "fail" just means "fail to become a category-defining product," whereas any other software company would be happy to pull the kind of numbers Google does for its smaller projects. If Google wants to operate like a venture capital firm, investing in many products and seeing most fail to get huge, than that's fine, but they need to consider the negative impact it has on their brand and on all future product launches.
Re:keep
Keep is now a core gsuite app, so while it could also get canned or have a total makeover, it will probably stay, atleast for enterprises, like Google+ continues to.
Keep is now a core gsuite app, so while it could also get canned or have a total makeover, it will probably stay, atleast for enterprises, like Google+ continues to.
I've heard that the reason launch and kill is so prevalent at Google is that creating a new product is a great way to be promoted while supporting an existing one, even building extensive new and well-recived features, is not.
I'm grouping here but engineers that work at Google are likely to be the type of person who is looking to continue to move up the career ladder. Seems like a good option would be to outsource some of these products but that doesn't seem like Googles M.O. either.
I'm grouping here but engineers that work at Google are likely to be the type of person who is looking to continue to move up the career ladder. Seems like a good option would be to outsource some of these products but that doesn't seem like Googles M.O. either.
I just interviewed at Google on Friday, and actually brought this up with my lunchtime interviewer. According to him, Google recognized this problem about a year or two ago, and rejiggered their promotion system to place less emphasis on product launches and more on long-term usage and stability.
If that's true (and I only had his word on it), it may just be that they're currently "flushing the pipeline" of all the promotion-fueled products that got started before this change went in, or maybe the change hasn't permeated all the way through the company yet. So it's possible Google's frantic pace of launching doomed products will taper off in time.
If that's true (and I only had his word on it), it may just be that they're currently "flushing the pipeline" of all the promotion-fueled products that got started before this change went in, or maybe the change hasn't permeated all the way through the company yet. So it's possible Google's frantic pace of launching doomed products will taper off in time.
I also noticed they seem to shutdown products when the main guy behind it leaves. Typically no one has interest in taking over because it was niche stuff with little chance to go big. Also, original guy would have already milked out credits and there is no career path at Google to be the maintainer in charge.
So the sequence of events are:
- founding guy leaves
- new guy becoming in charge sees career going down drain
- makes case for shutdown/half assed merge with other products to get out as soon as possible
So the sequence of events are:
- founding guy leaves
- new guy becoming in charge sees career going down drain
- makes case for shutdown/half assed merge with other products to get out as soon as possible
Google only interested in billion customer products, sorry, that just what the culture is...
You're right. The exact number might not be right, but the gist certainly is. For that reason, I don't think they should even be exploring products like this. Especially with their volumes of search data, they ought to know whether a product like this will be successful enough for them or not.
Mutt was just fine.
The title is sensationalist. The product is not dead but rebranded and redesigned. It's the app that is dead. Google Travel (which is a web site) replaces Google Trips (which is an application) and is pretty much the same product.
Abundance of ads (or rather partners' offerings) on Google Flight is a fair point, however it's a bit ironic to see this shaming coming from ArsTechnica that itself relies heavily on ad revenue.
Abundance of ads (or rather partners' offerings) on Google Flight is a fair point, however it's a bit ironic to see this shaming coming from ArsTechnica that itself relies heavily on ad revenue.
> Abundance of ads (or rather partners' offerings) on Google Flight is a fair point, however it's a bit ironic to see this shaming coming from ArsTechnica that itself relies heavily on ad revenue.
It's a news site that has an paid option for an ad-free and tracking-free subscription. I'm not sure how it could be less ironic unless it came from a public news service that has a blanket ban on advertisements. (Do any of those exist?)
It's a news site that has an paid option for an ad-free and tracking-free subscription. I'm not sure how it could be less ironic unless it came from a public news service that has a blanket ban on advertisements. (Do any of those exist?)
The killer feature of Google Trips for me (and I'm sure many other users) was the offline support, so for us it may as well be dead.
Seems like as good a time as any to Show HN (or shamelessly plug my side-hustle, depending on how you look at it):
https://www.naverator.com
It's a trip organizer/sharing platform that aims to be the place for you to collect all the various bits of information & reservations & such for your trip. Currently web-only but mobile on the roadmap as well as offline/export functionality which was one of the nice features of Google Trips.
Feedback welcome. I know it's still a little rough around the edges. Hoping to have things buttoned up nicely in another week or two and then start advertising it more officially to everyday folks.
https://www.naverator.com
It's a trip organizer/sharing platform that aims to be the place for you to collect all the various bits of information & reservations & such for your trip. Currently web-only but mobile on the roadmap as well as offline/export functionality which was one of the nice features of Google Trips.
Feedback welcome. I know it's still a little rough around the edges. Hoping to have things buttoned up nicely in another week or two and then start advertising it more officially to everyday folks.
Sign up was a bit rough. Had to copy-paste a code from email (no link to click), then it just said I was confirmed and I could log in. Seems like it's pretty common for all of that to just be done through a single click on an email link. But do you even care if folks use a bogus email?
It's all done through AWS Cognito so it's something I got working with the default code-based method and then moved on to other things. I'll look at reprioritizing a confirmation link to smooth that process.
I do care somewhat about confirming accounts in general just because it cuts down on spam/abuse, and it ensures someone didn't fat-finger their email and then can't regain access when they forget their password in a month. Also, I have on the roadmap a feature for configurable reminders/notifications, and services like AWS SES track bounces. Too many invalid recipients and you run the risk of getting throttled or suspended.
I do care somewhat about confirming accounts in general just because it cuts down on spam/abuse, and it ensures someone didn't fat-finger their email and then can't regain access when they forget their password in a month. Also, I have on the roadmap a feature for configurable reminders/notifications, and services like AWS SES track bounces. Too many invalid recipients and you run the risk of getting throttled or suspended.
I think Google's endgame is for everyone to live entirely in Gmail, Maps and maybe Search - as a fallback for when they haven't predicted exactly what it is you want at that precise moment in time.
I only got the Trips app because Inbox was shutdown and I was going to miss that functionality. If they could move trips into Gmail then I'd be happy with that.
This was a good product by Google, and I really wished it was available as a web app to make trip planning easier, but i don't see why we can't have both a web version as well as an offline app.
I tried it and thought the big benefit was supposed to be that it was offline - so you can use it without expensive roaming data, or while on a plane, in a tunnel etc.
I wish Google would give their employees the option to create spin-off startups of products they kill or killed.
I wouldn't mind if it was a Progressive Web App that caches the data.
Brilliant! Google are shutting down the Trips app on August 5th, right in the middle of the heaviest summer travel season.
For those using it heavily, one could hardly pick a more inconvenient date. Sometime in October or November, between the summer and holiday/new year travel surges would be more appropriate.
But, obviously less convenient for Google.
Google are becoming like their own version of Murphy's Law:
The app you rely on will be shut down at a random time, and at the most inconvenient possible time.
For those using it heavily, one could hardly pick a more inconvenient date. Sometime in October or November, between the summer and holiday/new year travel surges would be more appropriate.
But, obviously less convenient for Google.
Google are becoming like their own version of Murphy's Law:
The app you rely on will be shut down at a random time, and at the most inconvenient possible time.
Honest question: Why does Google's experimentation with products get termed "killing" products vs Amazon/etc.'s gets framed as "experimentation"
What high profile product has Amazon killed - besides the Fire phone.
Is trips a high-profile product?
one google Trips feature that I really loved, was it's curated day plans. Basically, each major city in the world had a nice list of day plans per city-district. I followed this guide in Barcelona, Montpellier, Nice, Marseille, New York City, Cannes and it always gave excellent recommendations. Sure it was only the very touristy spots, but it was nice to have a curated day plan for each day I was travelling. If anyone knows of anything similar please comment :)
Have you tried the Google Travel explore page? There's a "Suggested day plans" section you may enjoy.
For example, Barcelona: https://www.google.com/destination?q=barcelona+city&output=s...
Disclaimer: I work on a different travel-related product at Google.
For example, Barcelona: https://www.google.com/destination?q=barcelona+city&output=s...
Disclaimer: I work on a different travel-related product at Google.
Oh no, I loved that app! It was so easy to create lists of stuff to visit, as it was basically a "special view" for Google Maps.
I have stopped investing time in cool/interesting Google consumer products that does not have a legit chance to reach at least 50%+ user penetration a long time ago. They are always doomed.
> "its good advice bt im Not sure uve had a startup before." [sic]
> And this is spot on.
Is it though? Amazon's Free tier is more than enough to run a small early/proof-of-concept startup. Even ignoring Docker etc, Elastic Beanstalk is literally set and forget platform. There's very little excuse for not running something fault tolerant and modern.
At least, that's how I've stood up the last three startups i've lead engineering at.
Is it though? Amazon's Free tier is more than enough to run a small early/proof-of-concept startup. Even ignoring Docker etc, Elastic Beanstalk is literally set and forget platform. There's very little excuse for not running something fault tolerant and modern.
At least, that's how I've stood up the last three startups i've lead engineering at.
Hoping this reply comes across neither offensive nor fawning, but... this comment seems like a pretty spot on example of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
It doesn't :) I understand your point, but with that level of technical detail in a post, claiming that "we're just a small startup so we built it ourself" and "you don't know because you've never worked in a startup" feels like .. I don't know .. an excuse?
Is there a "Google Deathwatch" website? Not one that can be easily googled, as of this moment.
Like this?
https://gcemetery.co/
https://gcemetery.co/
They killed Nest!? Nest did make some egregious mistakes, but still. The way Google is killing off stuff reminds me of Microsoft in the 90's touting, then killing APIs.
Google did not kill off nest. They killed the "works with nest" API and replaced it with "works with Google Assistant".
So then they are literally touting, then killing off APIs.
Your comment said they killed nest. That was incorrect.
Yes. I based that off of one of the tombstones I saw on one of the sites, but that was hyperbolic.
I honestly thought Trips was a nice product. Hopefully the usefulness of the application lives on somewhere in Google. When I went to Shanghai the fist time it was incredibly useful to have downloaded reservations as my Google Fi SIM wasn't working well the first few days.
I used this app. Google is infuriating. Like many here, I've been migrating off of as many Google products as possible. I just don't trust them for anything related to privacy or reliability. Gmail is the tough one for me. Looking at moving everything to my Outlook.com address or paying for additional iCloud storage and using my iCloud.com email.
My end goal is to limit my exposure to Google to an as-needed basis, using only Youtube and Maps. For Google Maps, I'll likely start using Apple Maps more and Tesla's service when I get my Model 3, leaving Youtube as the only Google product I use with any frequency.
"Google it" has become a pejorative to eff something up.
Trips, you've been Googled.
My end goal is to limit my exposure to Google to an as-needed basis, using only Youtube and Maps. For Google Maps, I'll likely start using Apple Maps more and Tesla's service when I get my Model 3, leaving Youtube as the only Google product I use with any frequency.
"Google it" has become a pejorative to eff something up.
Trips, you've been Googled.
Ouch, I loved this product. Especially storing all the data for a particular trip offline. It made planning a breeze, and helped when changing plans on the fly as well.
Google is becoming the new Yahoo!
I don't get why they don't realize that by making people rely on all these experiments (see Inbox) and then shutting them down their brand suffers immensely.
I've migrated all my photo collection to Photos--although I back it up regularly--and I'm seriously considering going back to Apple Photos.
You just cannot trust Google to keep products working anymore.
I don't get why they don't realize that by making people rely on all these experiments (see Inbox) and then shutting them down their brand suffers immensely.
I've migrated all my photo collection to Photos--although I back it up regularly--and I'm seriously considering going back to Apple Photos.
You just cannot trust Google to keep products working anymore.
> I've migrated all my photo collection to Photos--although I back it up regularly--and I'm seriously considering going back to Apple Photos
I hope you either pay for storage or backup before you upload, or you may be disappointed to discover your photos are lower quality than they were when they were shot.
I hope you either pay for storage or backup before you upload, or you may be disappointed to discover your photos are lower quality than they were when they were shot.
Yes, I pay. Good point, though.
Although, I'm not sure my pictures would get downsized since their limits are pretty generous.
The worst is videos. My phone shoots them at 4K and they would get resized at 1080p.
Although, I'm not sure my pictures would get downsized since their limits are pretty generous.
The worst is videos. My phone shoots them at 4K and they would get resized at 1080p.
[deleted]
Tangential: What has people's experience been with Google Flights? It's quick and I like the calendar view for seeing different price options, but the results don't always correspond with the reality when I click through to the airline's website.
It's still the only site I've found which allows me to do searches of "show me cheapest flights to this part of the world in next 6 months" type.
It's pretty amazing for planning vacations because of that.
It's pretty amazing for planning vacations because of that.
In the past I have used flights religiously. Its been great for me. I've even been in situations where it said a price X, I went direct to united.com and the price was X+10%, and when I went back to google flights and clicked through I really did get X.
However this year I did for the first time get the other way around where I couldn't buy the price it said was available. I've also noticed Kayak now just as good or better, and flighthub is generally great too.
So for me it used to be the best, now is good, but nothing amazing.
However this year I did for the first time get the other way around where I couldn't buy the price it said was available. I've also noticed Kayak now just as good or better, and flighthub is generally great too.
So for me it used to be the best, now is good, but nothing amazing.
And this is happening the same day they show off their brand new Stadia product? Oops.
This is so eerily similar to killing of Picasa. They killed a great functional popular app and forced everyone to mediocre half assed website. Not sure what is going on at Google. Is there anyone in charge here?
I noticed that Google has revamped Google Voice yet again after nearly killing it off entirely for Hangouts. Now it looks like they are planning on moving away from Hangouts for Google Voice interactions. Any news here?
I actually really enjoyed this product! Are there good alternatives?
Does TripIt provide a similar function?
The best part is the title!
it would be awesome if google travel would allow me to also see photos of each of my past trips in addition to all the travel details. They already live in Google Photos.
[deleted]
just bring back the RSS Reader again FFS.
That's a shame about Google Trips.
But on the plus side... oh.
But on the plus side... oh.
So... they've just reorganized most of the features to different websites, instead of keeping them locked in an app you have to download.
Doesn't seem that bad. I don't think this really counts as a noteworthy "dead" product, just a refactoring of features across properties.