Google Poly is shutting down(support.google.com)
support.google.com
Google Poly is shutting down
https://support.google.com/poly/answer/10192635
200 comments
Yes, but what about the people who did? Here's the thing, Google is a big company. When a big company offers a service or product you expect a long shelf life so you can justify the time/money investment to use it. If you stumble across an open source or just some other random project by a single dev, you have an instinctive expectation that the project could die at any time. Thus, you invest your effort accordingly unless you're a hobbyist that enjoys the exploration (which is not most people).
Google has the focus of a 12 year adhd kid who just ate a whole birthday cake, unless when it comes to data collection. Google doesn't produce quality products anymore. They found their niche and pretend to do other things to try continuing that "do no evil" lie of a mission statement they used to have.
Here's the lesson, you can't trust google with anything. You base your personal or business infrastructure on Google you can expect one of two things:complete privacy invasion or they're going to destroy whatever you're using because they never took it seriously in the first place.
Google has the focus of a 12 year adhd kid who just ate a whole birthday cake, unless when it comes to data collection. Google doesn't produce quality products anymore. They found their niche and pretend to do other things to try continuing that "do no evil" lie of a mission statement they used to have.
Here's the lesson, you can't trust google with anything. You base your personal or business infrastructure on Google you can expect one of two things:complete privacy invasion or they're going to destroy whatever you're using because they never took it seriously in the first place.
Alternatively, it's time to adjust expectations and understand that if a product or service doesn't hit the growth curve Google expects, they sunset it.
A lot of businesses would be more successful if they learned how to do this across their own products and features. Instead engineers drown in KTLO, adding to cognitive load not only for employees but customers too.
A lot of businesses would be more successful if they learned how to do this across their own products and features. Instead engineers drown in KTLO, adding to cognitive load not only for employees but customers too.
> Google has the focus of a 12 year adhd kid who just ate a whole birthday cake, unless when it comes to data collection.
A decade ago I was an intern at Google. One of my mentors said something that has stuck with me: "Google found a hose that money pours out of and it's name is online advertising. All we do now is desperately try to find another hose."
Google's strategy for a long time was: Hire every clever person you can; give them some creative freedom; see if any of them come up with a trillion dollar idea.
Only now they've 'grown up'. 20% time is dead. There is no second hose. They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose. They just focus on the one they have now.
A decade ago I was an intern at Google. One of my mentors said something that has stuck with me: "Google found a hose that money pours out of and it's name is online advertising. All we do now is desperately try to find another hose."
Google's strategy for a long time was: Hire every clever person you can; give them some creative freedom; see if any of them come up with a trillion dollar idea.
Only now they've 'grown up'. 20% time is dead. There is no second hose. They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose. They just focus on the one they have now.
>20% time is dead. There is no second hose. They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose. They just focus on the one they have now.
Isn't that how they've always operated? Gmail was launched in 2004 and that sure wasn't a money-hose. But it did serve as yet another platform to support their money-hose since they could scan your emails and serve you ads.
It's really only a recent change to actually monetise Gmail beyond ads. They sell it as part of G Suite and as part of Google One. Not sure if Google One brings in the dough but surely G Suite makes enough to justify its existence.
Isn't that how they've always operated? Gmail was launched in 2004 and that sure wasn't a money-hose. But it did serve as yet another platform to support their money-hose since they could scan your emails and serve you ads.
It's really only a recent change to actually monetise Gmail beyond ads. They sell it as part of G Suite and as part of Google One. Not sure if Google One brings in the dough but surely G Suite makes enough to justify its existence.
Google's revenue is more diversified today than it's ever been. This is a facile take.
Being "well diversified" is subjective. But in freelance/contracting, the rule of thumb is to never have a customer account for more than 25% of your yearly income. You diversify your client base so when one walks away, it's never too big of a hit.
Ads make up 80% of their revenue. That's not diversified. That's an ad company that dabbles in other things. If Shell or BP's revenue was 80% oil and 20% solar, wouldn't you still call them oil companies that dabble in solar?
Ads make up 80% of their revenue. That's not diversified. That's an ad company that dabbles in other things. If Shell or BP's revenue was 80% oil and 20% solar, wouldn't you still call them oil companies that dabble in solar?
Here's one breakdown of it showing 88% of revenue from ads [2017]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-5-tech-giants-make-bi...
I'd like to see one for operating income, though, because I know AWS has a higher operating income than Amazon's Retail arm, even though Retail has a much higher revenue.
I'd like to see one for operating income, though, because I know AWS has a higher operating income than Amazon's Retail arm, even though Retail has a much higher revenue.
To quote the OP, "There is no second hose."
My statement is that yes, there is a second hose.
I've never said they're not primarily an ad company.
My statement is that yes, there is a second hose.
I've never said they're not primarily an ad company.
If it constitutes significantly less than 20% of their revenue, it's not a "hose that pours money out". So no, Google has not yet found a second hose, even if they've found other revenue streams.
Non-ad revenues are a $36B business (annualized based on Q3 revenue).
What's the threshold for something being a "hose"? A $36B business is a pretty big business!
What's the threshold for something being a "hose"? A $36B business is a pretty big business!
That $36B doesn't come from a single source. Google Cloud is their single largest non-ad revenue stream, at $3.4B in Q3 (or 7.4% of total revenue). The rest of their non-advertising revenue ($5.5B, or 11.8% of total revenue) is lumped into the "other" category, which implies that they have a lot of smaller revenue streams that add up to a larger figure—not a single hose. So I guess you could maybe call Google Cloud a "hose" at ~$14B per year, but it certainly doesn't print money like their advertising business, and is a relatively small source of revenue for such a large company.
13 years ago ads was roughly $14B annual revenue for Google. Was it a "hose" back then?
Everything is relative. Back then, for Google's size, their ad business was basically printing money. Today, given their size, Google Cloud and the rest of their non-ad businesses are barely significant—over 80% of their total revenue still comes from ads, and that is only very slowly shifting. Maybe in another 13 years, Google Cloud (or another venture) will catch up to the ad business (though I'm skeptical), but today, that's nowhere near being true, and they still largely depend on that single source of revenue. So are they more diversified than they used to be? Sure. But to say that they have found a second hose that's anywhere near as profitable as advertising is misleading at best, or blatantly false at worst, at least as it stands today.
A $36B revenue business makes Google's non-ad business roughly the 94th largest company in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_t...
Says the commenter with zero evidence to support their claims.
Come on, anyone can read GOOG financial statements.
https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/20201030_alphabet_10Q.pd...
Q3 2019, ads were 84% of revenue Q3 2020, ads were 81% of revenue
It's not a massive change, but it's changing and ads are at the lowest percentage of overall revenue they've ever been.
https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/20201030_alphabet_10Q.pd...
Q3 2019, ads were 84% of revenue Q3 2020, ads were 81% of revenue
It's not a massive change, but it's changing and ads are at the lowest percentage of overall revenue they've ever been.
> It's not a massive change, but it's changing and ads are at the lowest percentage of overall revenue they've ever been.
"More diversified than it's ever been" can be factually true here, but for the purposes of this discussion was highly inaccurate.
"More diversified than it's ever been" can be factually true here, but for the purposes of this discussion was highly inaccurate.
OP was directly responding to:
> They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose. They just focus on the one they have now.
The financial numbers suggest they have not given up and have succeeded incrementally towards other sources since. How else do you correct the above statement?
> They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose. They just focus on the one they have now.
The financial numbers suggest they have not given up and have succeeded incrementally towards other sources since. How else do you correct the above statement?
Agree. Cloud, health, self-driving cars, devices.. all these have the potentials to become the next big thing.
Growing from $1B to $10B is really difficult, unless you have virtually no competition.
Growing from $1B to $10B is really difficult, unless you have virtually no competition.
There's no posted evidence for the idea that Google only makes money on advertising, either. Can we have a discussion where we assume that everyone isn't an idiot who needs a link for every statement? Or do you seriously think advertising is the only way Google makes money? If so, sibling comment posted some nice links that one would do well to read.
They're publicly traded. Their revenue sources are open for the public to read. The other guy saying they're diversified linked to their quarterly to show 80% ad revenue. That's pretty much "they're an ad company".
A decade ago when the OP was an intern it was 100%! Non-ad revenue source have grown by infinity percent!
I made a very specific claim and I'm not sure what everyone's problem is. Google has found other sources of revenue and is actively trying to grow those sources. There are other hoses. I have never claimed it's not an ad company or that ads have somehow gone away. Because that would be dumb and factually wrong.
I made a very specific claim and I'm not sure what everyone's problem is. Google has found other sources of revenue and is actively trying to grow those sources. There are other hoses. I have never claimed it's not an ad company or that ads have somehow gone away. Because that would be dumb and factually wrong.
> There is no second hose. They've mostly given up on the idea of a clever person finding a new money-hose.
I think they are quite shortsighted. The idea of running Google as a conglomerate, turning it into Alphabet, was good. But somehow, they have not been able to get rid of those layers of middle management that kill innovation. I've heard that Calico and other ventures are really political, and lot's of people that moved there hoping to do great work are quite frustrated.
Which is a shame, because they do have know how and technology to achieve great things. Just out of the protein folding results of this week you could spin off dozens of highly successful startups.
I think they are quite shortsighted. The idea of running Google as a conglomerate, turning it into Alphabet, was good. But somehow, they have not been able to get rid of those layers of middle management that kill innovation. I've heard that Calico and other ventures are really political, and lot's of people that moved there hoping to do great work are quite frustrated.
Which is a shame, because they do have know how and technology to achieve great things. Just out of the protein folding results of this week you could spin off dozens of highly successful startups.
>When a big company offers a service or product you expect a long shelf life so you can justify the time/money investment to use it.
I bought a Chromebook in 2014. It still works, but support was discontinued earlier this year. That sounds okay to me. I wonder if Poly was popular? I've never heard about it 'til today.
I bought a Chromebook in 2014. It still works, but support was discontinued earlier this year. That sounds okay to me. I wonder if Poly was popular? I've never heard about it 'til today.
They could continue to host these services for basically free...I guess the security vulnerabilities would grow over time, making them liable.
> If you stumble across an open source or just some other random project by a single dev, you have an instinctive expectation that the project could die at any time.
Ironically at this point, I'd place more trust on an open-source project because at the very least, if the maintainer abandons it, I could fork it and potentially self-host.
Ironically at this point, I'd place more trust on an open-source project because at the very least, if the maintainer abandons it, I could fork it and potentially self-host.
I've not only heard of it, I use it frequently. It's by far the easiest way to access permissively licensed (Creative Commons attribution mostly) content for making things in WebGL. Given the fact that Poly is essentially a very basic CRUD app with simple files attached there's can't really be a good reason to shut it down - it's simple, mature, and can't take much more than a few hours of maintenance a month for a single developer.
Either Google has a real problem finding developers capable of maintaining things, or their decisions to keep things running are based purely on cash with no regard for either users or their own reputation as a company that can keep services running.
Either Google has a real problem finding developers capable of maintaining things, or their decisions to keep things running are based purely on cash with no regard for either users or their own reputation as a company that can keep services running.
They have a real problem finding developers that will want to work on it. You don't get promoted at Google for maintaining a product that isn't growing.
It's strange that getting promoted is such a universal goal. Many or most people who start on the promotion ladder get stuck in the miserable middle. There's surprisingly little reflection on whether or not the extra money is worth the extra hassle, or at what point one should avoid further promotion.
I'm sure that's what Google developers tell themselves to feel better about being unable to keep something running for more than a couple of years, but the fact is Google could easily recruit developers to maintain things. They pay well, they make things people have heard of, and not everyone is insanely ambitious that they actively refuse to work on things that won't further their career.
This is an HR problem. Two HR problems really, as exemplified by both your sentences.
> They have a real problem finding developers that will want to work on it.
At most companies, you don't get to choose projects you want to work on. You get assigned a project whether you like it or not. Almost every other company functions like this, Google's insistence on being different is shooting them in the foot.
> You don't get promoted at Google for maintaining a product that isn't growing.
Maybe Google should be selecting for people who aren't interested in chasing promotions. There are plenty of 'workman' developers in the world who are okay with spending the rest of their careers maintaining legacy systems. This probably ties into good ol' Silicon Valley age discrimination: they spend so much time chasing young hotshots with chips on their shoulders, while most of the workman developers are in their 50s.
> They have a real problem finding developers that will want to work on it.
At most companies, you don't get to choose projects you want to work on. You get assigned a project whether you like it or not. Almost every other company functions like this, Google's insistence on being different is shooting them in the foot.
> You don't get promoted at Google for maintaining a product that isn't growing.
Maybe Google should be selecting for people who aren't interested in chasing promotions. There are plenty of 'workman' developers in the world who are okay with spending the rest of their careers maintaining legacy systems. This probably ties into good ol' Silicon Valley age discrimination: they spend so much time chasing young hotshots with chips on their shoulders, while most of the workman developers are in their 50s.
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not that an engineer says no but rather, other projects that are growing and have more resources/weight behind them come calling and looking for engineers that want to transfer into their project. A stalled/non-growing project can't block a transfer like that.
If Google really wanted to solve this problem they could by making the promotion criteria different. Their actions say they don't really see it as a problem, though.
If Google really wanted to solve this problem they could by making the promotion criteria different. Their actions say they don't really see it as a problem, though.
With user generated content apps it isn't the software that is the main maintenance job, it's keeping out abusive content.
I've read a guess: As known, Google uses monorepo and own libraries, so they need to maintain all applications to keep up to date to work with libraries. That's why Google kills minor but worth services.
I know Google Poly since I'm in game dev (but as a hobby these days, so all the art has to come from my non-3d-artist self or places like Google Poly)
The fact that they won't just freeze uploads and leave it up is just stupid.
People always bring up "What about maintenance costs in terms of dev time!", but at the core this is literally static assets. No fancy API, no crazy isomorphic app or something needing fat servers.
Just 3D modeling files.
Literally they could generate a static page for each asset that uses the preview image instead of the 3d viewer, stick it in their cloud storage solution, and have it exist, untouched, in perpetuity.
The cost wouldn't even register on a microscopic scale for a place like Google
The fact that they won't just freeze uploads and leave it up is just stupid.
People always bring up "What about maintenance costs in terms of dev time!", but at the core this is literally static assets. No fancy API, no crazy isomorphic app or something needing fat servers.
Just 3D modeling files.
Literally they could generate a static page for each asset that uses the preview image instead of the 3d viewer, stick it in their cloud storage solution, and have it exist, untouched, in perpetuity.
The cost wouldn't even register on a microscopic scale for a place like Google
Complete second hand / third hand heresay but:
The reason google kills everything is because they do everything via monorepo. So if they don't have enough devs to literally -keep a service up to date with the currently evolving stack- they have to kill the project. This is why things get killed so easily.
Makes sense to me from a "why canyt you just leave it on" standpoint. But it still makes me very leeery of trusting any project of theirs long term (besides search/gmail).
The reason google kills everything is because they do everything via monorepo. So if they don't have enough devs to literally -keep a service up to date with the currently evolving stack- they have to kill the project. This is why things get killed so easily.
Makes sense to me from a "why canyt you just leave it on" standpoint. But it still makes me very leeery of trusting any project of theirs long term (besides search/gmail).
This. Spent almost 3 years at Google and my view is that it is an intended side benefit of how they do development.
If something that relies on say, one of their log services, and that log service is getting end-of-lifed then all the dependent services that aren't really critical will also get shutdown. It's a forcing mechanism to keep the amount of cruft down. If that service that relies on the old service is that important they'll put the resources on the project long enough to port it to the new service.
If something that relies on say, one of their log services, and that log service is getting end-of-lifed then all the dependent services that aren't really critical will also get shutdown. It's a forcing mechanism to keep the amount of cruft down. If that service that relies on the old service is that important they'll put the resources on the project long enough to port it to the new service.
This makes sense for engineers but is detrimental from a user point of view. Google effectively taking what would be a few days of engineering time to update some API calls and instead amplifying it and passing it on to users.
When considering whether to learn/migrate to a Google service, everyone should consider this ratio at which Google values your time vs. that of their engineers.
When considering whether to learn/migrate to a Google service, everyone should consider this ratio at which Google values your time vs. that of their engineers.
That's the distinction I made above, this isn't like a traditional "app" where the core of it's functionality is dynamic
It doesn't need to stay up to date with an evolving stack
Static files in Google's equivalent of an S3 bucket with public downloads enabled, that's it.
By design these types of blob storage services "just work" as a consumer indefinitely (otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point to them)
-
I get the whole "who does it get billed to, who's going to take a day to write this script that makes the preview page" deal, but like, this is literally the one time where just a little bit of initiative can win some brownie points with minimal investment, can't they do it?
It doesn't need to stay up to date with an evolving stack
Static files in Google's equivalent of an S3 bucket with public downloads enabled, that's it.
By design these types of blob storage services "just work" as a consumer indefinitely (otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point to them)
-
I get the whole "who does it get billed to, who's going to take a day to write this script that makes the preview page" deal, but like, this is literally the one time where just a little bit of initiative can win some brownie points with minimal investment, can't they do it?
Google, apparently, lists all it's products here: https://about.google/intl/en_us/products/#all-products - I'd never heard of Google Duo.
Seems like an incomplete list because Google Poly is not on there. I double checked archive.org to make sure it wasn't removed today.
Duo is pretty big. It's pre-installed on every single android phone, and on Samsung phones it is the default video calling app too.
Also, you cannot remove it. You can uninstall the icon, but the underlying code is so deeply integrated into the OS that people can still call you and you will get a Duo video call even after uninstalling it.
Quite a menace.
Also, you cannot remove it. You can uninstall the icon, but the underlying code is so deeply integrated into the OS that people can still call you and you will get a Duo video call even after uninstalling it.
Quite a menace.
That's interesting. I have a Fairphone 3 with a stock Android 10 and it does not come with the Duo pre-installed. The icon for video chats in Contacts app is greyed-out. After installing the Google Duo, it becomes active.
Is it possible to remove/deactivate it via adb or other tools?
Is it possible to remove/deactivate it via adb or other tools?
> Is it possible to remove/deactivate it via adb or other tools?
I haven't tried, I don't mess with my phone too much because I don't want to trip the Knox fuse.
I'm surprised an Android 10 phone does not have Duo pre-installed. Does it have the standard Play store and associated google apps?
Duo has 1 billion+ installs in play store, which basically means they pre-installed it on every phone.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
I haven't tried, I don't mess with my phone too much because I don't want to trip the Knox fuse.
I'm surprised an Android 10 phone does not have Duo pre-installed. Does it have the standard Play store and associated google apps?
Duo has 1 billion+ installs in play store, which basically means they pre-installed it on every phone.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
Yes, it is a standard Play Store / Google Services on Fairphone. However, it comes with a very small amount of applications pre-installed. I was really surprised when I turned it on for the first time.
That's actually (at least recently) quite "popular" product I would say, because they included it in most Android smartphones to offer video calls. I am tempted to say Google Duo is spread on millions of devices, however it is kind of an app, which is rarely used at all by most of users. Also, there are thousands of competitors, where even Google Meet does feels better than Duo.
It's definitely a funny one. I hadn't heard of it but it appears to be an Instagram alike for 3D models and VR. If Google was trying to establish themselves as a first mover platform in the VR space, it's odd that they would can such a product before VR itself has finished taking off. It signals that they actually have no interests in VR going forward but it's Google so you never know, they will probably have 4 of these services at some point in the future and you'll never know when or where one starts and stops. For an advertising company, Google is remarkably bad at advertising their own products.
Google has already shown that they're willing to try: they've made Tango (AR, discontinued), Google Glass (AR, enterprise-only), ARCore (AR, active), Cardboard (VR, discontinued), and Daydream (VR, discontinued).
I’ve never been able to understand their VR approach. They actually brought ~$500 mobile VR daydream headsets to market (with their HW partners) with cameras doing inside-out positional tracking but no tracked controllers. Everyone I talked to in the VR scene at the time (at conferences etc) that had tried some HW knew 3D input was critical for UX and the near term future and this was a dead end. But Google puts a ton of effort into launching an obviously not-yet-viable product, then after doing the most technically difficult part doesn’t follow through on the last step and lets FB eat their lunch.
I could understand putting in less effort, or more effort, but failing the way they did was mind boggling and just seems like lack of a strategy on the management level.
I could understand putting in less effort, or more effort, but failing the way they did was mind boggling and just seems like lack of a strategy on the management level.
Given what I know about Google culture, which has also been brought up in other threads here, this isn't that surprising. I think because of the extent to which their promotion process relies on demonstrating technical achievement, it's hard for them to get enough people to work on things if they aren't technically challenging.
These resemble portfolio hedging bets on potential future paths of technology playforms that could affect their ad biz. Google seems to buy a spread of small bets with several-year expiry and high convexity (i.e. big payout if equilibrium shifts in that direction). I suspect a number of these come out of discussions anticipating what could be next after mobile.
[deleted]
Yep, I hadn't heard of this one. Several of their shutdowns have effectively been product announcements and shutdowns rolled into one for me.
They announce a shutdown, I don't know what it is so I check it out. I get excited for a brief moment until I remember it's getting shutdown.
For a company with such a massive advertising network, they kinda suck at marketing their own products and services. E.g. https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/status/1253824612179292160
The right thing to do by Google would be to make the product available as a stand-alone application, so users can still use it even if it doesn't run on Google's infrastructure.
More work, yes. But certainly much better than what they are doing now.
More work, yes. But certainly much better than what they are doing now.
> make the product available as a stand-alone application [...] even if it doesn't run on Google's infrastructure
How would they do that? Who would pay the server costs?
Edit: Out of curiosity, is there anyone reading this comment that would be willing to pay for the infrastructure costs to keep Poly alive?
How would they do that? Who would pay the server costs?
Edit: Out of curiosity, is there anyone reading this comment that would be willing to pay for the infrastructure costs to keep Poly alive?
Not to mention that its been built on top of the Google internal development stack and getting it working outside of that environment would require a substantial re-write.
So you're saying they're getting bitten by vendor lock-in?
How is it vendor lock-in if the internal code base that was never built in a way to work in the outside world can't just be taken and dropped on Github?
We are being bitten by vendor lock-in, once again
No? We're getting bitten by vendor lock in.
> How would they do that? Who would pay the server costs?
The user would run the server, or another company, or a group of enthousiasts. It doesn't need to be expensive, especially if the user doesn't require many other users on the system.
The user would run the server, or another company, or a group of enthousiasts. It doesn't need to be expensive, especially if the user doesn't require many other users on the system.
That doesn't really make sense. poly.google.com looks to be essentially a repository/library of 3D renderings people want to share. There is no "standalone app" here, it's just a sharing site.
> The right thing to do by Google would be to make the product available as a stand-alone application, so users can still use it even if it doesn't run on Google's infrastructure.
Did any of your companies ever do that? How did it go?
Did any of your companies ever do that? How did it go?
Did any of my companies ever pull a product while it was still being used? No.
Companies discontinue products all the time due to acquisitions, bankruptcy, restructuring or simply re-orienting investment and I've never seen them held to this standard of having to host it somewhere external. I'm not even really sure how that would work.
A commenter here shared an example of a similar product shut down by Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_3D
Disclaimer: Googler, but in no way connect to the Poly team.
Edit: Added Remix 3D example.
A commenter here shared an example of a similar product shut down by Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_3D
Disclaimer: Googler, but in no way connect to the Poly team.
Edit: Added Remix 3D example.
Good luck justifying that to whoever is paying that bill.
Honestly the fact that I haven't heard of it and those comments are probably related. My trust in google to maintain things is so underwater that I really don't feel like dedicating the attention to even learn their new product offerings. For me it's all in one ear and out the other.
There's a phenomenon I've witnessed in dev teams that I always thought was a separate issue but I'm starting to question that conclusion.
Like with Covid, like with SLAs, it's not enough to think of ratios of success or failure. You have to also look at frequency and duration.
A flaky test might fail a build 1 time in 200, but as your team gets bigger, build frequency rises, your tests grow, and eventually you're getting failed builds frequently enough that people start to see them as a regular occurrence, and that negatively affects their opinions about the whole experience. I've seen people bash the system when failures happen weekly, I've seen others 'turn' after a couple of statistical clusters and then fall to confirmation bias long afterward.
Google has so many irons in the fire that I think we've reached that same threshold for a lot of people. Shutting down the worst 1% of your projects a year sounds like a completely reasonable business plan. Until you have 1000 projects, and now you're shutting one down every five weeks on average. People will talk.
And if there's no transparency in that process, how do I know that my favorite tool isn't next, or on the list for next year? Odds are low, but not zero.
Like with Covid, like with SLAs, it's not enough to think of ratios of success or failure. You have to also look at frequency and duration.
A flaky test might fail a build 1 time in 200, but as your team gets bigger, build frequency rises, your tests grow, and eventually you're getting failed builds frequently enough that people start to see them as a regular occurrence, and that negatively affects their opinions about the whole experience. I've seen people bash the system when failures happen weekly, I've seen others 'turn' after a couple of statistical clusters and then fall to confirmation bias long afterward.
Google has so many irons in the fire that I think we've reached that same threshold for a lot of people. Shutting down the worst 1% of your projects a year sounds like a completely reasonable business plan. Until you have 1000 projects, and now you're shutting one down every five weeks on average. People will talk.
And if there's no transparency in that process, how do I know that my favorite tool isn't next, or on the list for next year? Odds are low, but not zero.
Counterpoint: since Google has firmly established a reputation for killing their own products, people who would otherwise find value in certain Google products (beyond search ads gmail and android) avoid them and never hear about them to begin with.
I wonder if they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: google launches a product, people avoid it assuming it’ll get killed off, google says the user metrics don’t justify the investment, and they kill it.
I wonder if they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: google launches a product, people avoid it assuming it’ll get killed off, google says the user metrics don’t justify the investment, and they kill it.
I think HN tends to overplay google's product discontinuations.
If you ask someone who doesn't read HN if they've ever been frustrated with Google shutting down a product, my guess is 95%+ of people wouldn't be able to remember a single product that was shut down that they used.
One solution for Google might be to brand the products without the "Google" name prefix, until Google is absolutely sure it will be around for a decade+.
If you ask someone who doesn't read HN if they've ever been frustrated with Google shutting down a product, my guess is 95%+ of people wouldn't be able to remember a single product that was shut down that they used.
One solution for Google might be to brand the products without the "Google" name prefix, until Google is absolutely sure it will be around for a decade+.
I think a lot of people remember the Reader shutdown, and the recent weird migration from Play Music to Youtube Music.
Google Music and Google Photos disagree.
They ended Music, and bait and switch their photo policy.
Traumatic events for me. I've left both services, won't get another pixel, and attempted to switch to Firefox.
They ended Music, and bait and switch their photo policy.
Traumatic events for me. I've left both services, won't get another pixel, and attempted to switch to Firefox.
True enough, but this is among the largest gatherings of technology decision makers (at varying levels, presumably some very high level) out there and this comes up every thread about Google.
Hosting some files to serve as a counterpoint would not be totally unjustifiable from a marketing perspective.
Hosting some files to serve as a counterpoint would not be totally unjustifiable from a marketing perspective.
If you ask someone who doesn't read HN if they've ever been frustrated with Google shutting down a product, my guess is 95%+ of people wouldn't be able to remember a single product that was shut down that they used.
That is true, but it ignores the fact that at least 50% of Google's product offerings are aimed at the sort of people who read HN.
That is true, but it ignores the fact that at least 50% of Google's product offerings are aimed at the sort of people who read HN.
I think former users of Picasa and Reader (ouch!) might amount to more than 5%.
Google has 2 billion users or thereabouts. 5% of that is 100 million users. Why not maintain a product for those 5% if it's easy?
Maybe. But even in gaming circles, people often cite "Google may discontinue it" as one of the main reasons for avoiding Stadia, which is a Google gaming service. I believe their reputation goes well beyond the HN tech circle.
You might well be right with your 95 per cent guess, but it
has proved frustrating and even embarrassing for me over the years to have recruited friends, family, colleagues and associates to some Google products/services only for the rug to be pulled later from under those who jumped aboard on my recommendation.
This has happened with Picassa, with Google+ (which had great integrations with other G services, and features I liked - such as one that let you group people into, say separately addressable units such as friends, family, colleagues, associates etc) and also the original Google chat (still around, but functionally degraded and headed for the chop, I fear).
I've loved some of these because of their features/usability. To me Google+ having few users and not having content pushed in my face was a bonus. Text chatting happily while in a Gmail tab (usually open when I'm working) but with minimal distraction and not having to context-switch - suits me. And now a lovely library of free 3D assets is for the chop.
Once upon a time I earned a little kudos for having my finger on the pulse and spotting decent emerging tech/trends. I was laughed at by many when, in 1994, I switched from a senior role in print news to one in the nascent online space - but many people took an interest because of my recommendation or at my urging.
I am no seer, I am rarely an evangelist, but I hate it that many people I know have invested time/effort in Google stuff on my recommendation. I feel as though I have let them down.
This has happened with Picassa, with Google+ (which had great integrations with other G services, and features I liked - such as one that let you group people into, say separately addressable units such as friends, family, colleagues, associates etc) and also the original Google chat (still around, but functionally degraded and headed for the chop, I fear).
I've loved some of these because of their features/usability. To me Google+ having few users and not having content pushed in my face was a bonus. Text chatting happily while in a Gmail tab (usually open when I'm working) but with minimal distraction and not having to context-switch - suits me. And now a lovely library of free 3D assets is for the chop.
Once upon a time I earned a little kudos for having my finger on the pulse and spotting decent emerging tech/trends. I was laughed at by many when, in 1994, I switched from a senior role in print news to one in the nascent online space - but many people took an interest because of my recommendation or at my urging.
I am no seer, I am rarely an evangelist, but I hate it that many people I know have invested time/effort in Google stuff on my recommendation. I feel as though I have let them down.
Allo, Duo, Music, Hangouts were all products people in my circles used regularly, even if I didn't.
in this they behave like a short-term gain focused stock market
Firebase is safe...right?
It's about branding and trust. Before any product is a popular one that prints money it's a small one looking for early adopters.
When those first adopters are deciding whether or not use the new product, part of that equation is what happens if this doesn't catch on? Should I trust them to jump on board now, wait, or go with someone else?
For instance if someone was choosing betwen two similar and new products from Microsoft and Google one factor weighing in Microsoft's favor is they will care about support, and an exit plan even if the product doesn't take off.
When those first adopters are deciding whether or not use the new product, part of that equation is what happens if this doesn't catch on? Should I trust them to jump on board now, wait, or go with someone else?
For instance if someone was choosing betwen two similar and new products from Microsoft and Google one factor weighing in Microsoft's favor is they will care about support, and an exit plan even if the product doesn't take off.
I loved Google poly! It was a great place to find models for A-frame scenes. A-frame is VR basically built in HTML. I really liked it as a teaching tool especially for kids. Like learn HTML elements by finding a bear on Google poly and putting it in your scene.
It was a little frustrating in some places since a lot of it was oriented around their VR drawing tool (Tilt Brush) which my system didn't support.
It was a little frustrating in some places since a lot of it was oriented around their VR drawing tool (Tilt Brush) which my system didn't support.
Yes, I know it and browse it frequently - a great resource, if you've an interest in or need for this type of 3D asset. (I used to run a 3D animation software company.)
The problem is that if Google holds this attitude, that means I as a user must absolutely stay away from anything that isn't promoted extremely heavily by Google.
And if I and everyone else thinks this way, as Google is conditioning them to, then no one will ever adopt Google's non heavily promoted products, which will make their failure a self fulfilling prophecy.
And if I and everyone else thinks this way, as Google is conditioning them to, then no one will ever adopt Google's non heavily promoted products, which will make their failure a self fulfilling prophecy.
I learn about a lot of niche google products by seeing the announcement that they're being shut down.
Looking at the frequency of the art uploaded and the effort in it I bet the artists and those who used that platform would indeed care about it being killed by Google.
I used the models for YouTube videos. It was convenient since most of them are free to use if you credit the author.
I think this is getting hot product thanks to iPhone 12 Pro's LIDAR camera but Google kills.
>We appreciate you trusting us to host your assets and provide a space where they can shine.
Well, I guess that was a mistake for whoever did.
That almost reads like a hint of self awareness for their continued killing of things they release.
Well, I guess that was a mistake for whoever did.
That almost reads like a hint of self awareness for their continued killing of things they release.
You act like there's zero value to having someone else host your assets FOR A WHILE.
There is value. Yes, there's also cost to having to re-host your assets somewhere else.
There is value. Yes, there's also cost to having to re-host your assets somewhere else.
I didn't say there was zero value, my statement also came with the assumption that upon starting this service, google never made it clear it would be temporary. I may be wrong about that.
Also, not everyone can afford to re-host their assets, not everyone will be able to, some might not even realize it'll be lost.
The broken trust comes from the idea that google likely promoted this as something that will be a new ongoing community that's now being shutdown unceremoniously.
The lack of trust towards Google's products come not just from the services they're providing they shut down, but they try to build up communities then abandon them with no recourse.
It wasn't just the assets they hosted, it was the people they were trying to bring together that are now scattered again because they trusted google.
Also, not everyone can afford to re-host their assets, not everyone will be able to, some might not even realize it'll be lost.
The broken trust comes from the idea that google likely promoted this as something that will be a new ongoing community that's now being shutdown unceremoniously.
The lack of trust towards Google's products come not just from the services they're providing they shut down, but they try to build up communities then abandon them with no recourse.
It wasn't just the assets they hosted, it was the people they were trying to bring together that are now scattered again because they trusted google.
"google never made it clear it would be temporary"
Why would you ever assume any service is permanent?
"The broken trust comes from the idea that google likely promoted this as something that will be a new ongoing community"
Anyone who "trusted" that a free service would work forever is being unrealistic.
"they try to build up communities then abandon them with no recourse"
They're hosting open source content. You can fork that. Anyone can fork it. If your content were hosted on Poly, you could use Takeout to download all of it in one go.
"that are now scattered again because they trusted google"
If there's any blame here, I would think it would be that there's not a group of people (like us at HN) who work closely with sites like Poly to back them up before they are shut down. Once we have a track record, we can ask Google to say not just, "We're shutting Poly down," but "and it's moving to Hacker News Back Things Up .com."
If someone wants to bridge that gap, moving this content to the Internet Archive or something, that sounds worthwhile.
Why would you ever assume any service is permanent?
"The broken trust comes from the idea that google likely promoted this as something that will be a new ongoing community"
Anyone who "trusted" that a free service would work forever is being unrealistic.
"they try to build up communities then abandon them with no recourse"
They're hosting open source content. You can fork that. Anyone can fork it. If your content were hosted on Poly, you could use Takeout to download all of it in one go.
"that are now scattered again because they trusted google"
If there's any blame here, I would think it would be that there's not a group of people (like us at HN) who work closely with sites like Poly to back them up before they are shut down. Once we have a track record, we can ask Google to say not just, "We're shutting Poly down," but "and it's moving to Hacker News Back Things Up .com."
If someone wants to bridge that gap, moving this content to the Internet Archive or something, that sounds worthwhile.
It's a service tied to a paid $20 product called Google TiltBrush.
There's a $20 product called TiltBrush.
There was Poly.
Titlbrush could export / import to Poly. That was added after the launch of TiltBrush, yes?
Sure, if you bought TiltBrush after Poly integration was added, I could see how that's taking away a feature you used, and that's a bummer.
There was Poly.
Titlbrush could export / import to Poly. That was added after the launch of TiltBrush, yes?
Sure, if you bought TiltBrush after Poly integration was added, I could see how that's taking away a feature you used, and that's a bummer.
Most people probably bought Tilt Brush post Poly integration due to the slow uptake of VR. I didn’t even realize Poly came out after Tilt Brush.
Probably already known but people at Google get promoted because of launching new products, nobody gets promoted for maintaining an existing product. Is a mafia, Product Managers, Engineers, TPMs that want to go to next level all play the same game and the organization allows it. Ok product is released, then the team moves to the next sexy thing, and the product end up being replaced by some new team members or contractors take over and at the end, product just dies. Even worst in Cloud just playing catch-up with AWS and the same history repeats just that know you have Enterprise customers which wouldn't be happy...and what this causes is that externally and internally you have bunch of products doing the same things (messenger apps, notebooks)
Does anyone know if the Internet Archive has any plans to scrape the content? Poly is not only a critical component of several VR apps I use, it's a repository of some incredible Tilt Brush artwork and part of the history of modern VR.
I'm dreading the imminent upcoming news about Tilt Brush itself. And Google Earth VR which is a true cultural treasure.
And just finally - in case it isn't clear - fuck Google.
I'm dreading the imminent upcoming news about Tilt Brush itself. And Google Earth VR which is a true cultural treasure.
And just finally - in case it isn't clear - fuck Google.
Yet another Google service which I only know about by reading the news that it is shutting down. This one looks pretty great. Would be nice to see announcements when those things are launching, not when they are shutting down ;)
They are still listing it as a major feature of their $20 tiltbrush app.
They are still publishing their unity asset encouraging people to use it as a runtime asset library.
I’m going to see if I can get a refund on tiltbrush. I don’t want to reward this kind of behaviour.
They are still publishing their unity asset encouraging people to use it as a runtime asset library.
I’m going to see if I can get a refund on tiltbrush. I don’t want to reward this kind of behaviour.
This is the main issue for me. With the Oculus Quest and Tilt Brush having poor export options, I have no other choice than to use either Sketchfab - which has limited uploads - or Google Poly.
The ecosystem works when all services are kept alive, but when one falls, you are left with a useless piece of software.
This is a shame, because the expressiveness and ease-of-use of Tilt Brush is unmatched on the Quest.
The ecosystem works when all services are kept alive, but when one falls, you are left with a useless piece of software.
This is a shame, because the expressiveness and ease-of-use of Tilt Brush is unmatched on the Quest.
I haven't used Tilt Brush enough, but does this mean that Tilt Brush also dead or are there other export options?
There are other export options, but they are a PITA - which is why poly is listed as a major feature. People in VR art communities are particularly disappointed with this announcement.
Google is an organization run by engineers. They have no concept of marketing, or product placement or community engagement. They build for an audience of engineers, and if a wider cross-section of the population embraces a product that is purely by happenstance rather than design. As an enterprise they appear to have AD/HD, these products are launched and supported for awhile and then dropped. It is baked into the corporate culture, and I don't think it will or can change.
Innovation is over here, and Stagnation is over there.
You can't expect them to a) Innovate, and b) Pay forever for something that's not succeeding.
You may draw the line differently, but in this specific instance, I think you're being unfair.
You can't expect them to a) Innovate, and b) Pay forever for something that's not succeeding.
You may draw the line differently, but in this specific instance, I think you're being unfair.
At this point, why is anyone relying on Google APIs (or even GCP!) for serious work? It feels like Google is contempt with Search, Ads and Android.
Google Poly looks like a fun experiment that unfortunately didn't pan out to their expectations. Google APIs/GCP have paying users that businesses depend on. It wouldn't be fair to have them in the same room.
It’s one of the main features of the $20 tiltbrush app. People ARE paying for it.
I was about to ask if TiltBrush relied on this. Thanks for confirming. It's hard to buy anything made by Google that hasn't been around for close to a decade, unless you don't care whether or not that product stays around.
[deleted]
What's really scary is that people rely on golang ignoring that it is entirely corporate-driven.
(Go ahead and downvote me a ton)
(Go ahead and downvote me a ton)
I mean, it's a language and open source. If the community really hates the direction Google takes it, they can fork it and support whatever features they want.
Every language in widespread use today is either corporate driven or corporate sponsored.
PHP, Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Java, Swift, Obj-C, Rust…
Welcome to capitalism, friend.
PHP, Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Go, Java, Swift, Obj-C, Rust…
Welcome to capitalism, friend.
I mean, that's what you get when the internal metrics are skewed towards shipping new products, paying no attention to maintaining or improving existing ones.
> or even GCP
At least you're paying for GCP.
At least you're paying for GCP.
And they aren't making a profit on it. I think it will last a bit longer though - shutting down GCP would mean admitting a huge defeat.
What a luck that there is still a free grave available! ;-)
Someday, the Google graveyard will look like this: http://www.worldwartours.be/files/img_9456_1.jpg
Someday, the Google graveyard will look like this: http://www.worldwartours.be/files/img_9456_1.jpg
Fail Fast, Fail Often...
Wow - first time I've seen that. Some are a little over-eager... Hangouts for example basically continues as Google Meet.
What I wonder is how many startups were effectively killed by these dead products, either by destroying a business model and chances of getting investors or through acqui-hiring the best talent?
What I wonder is how many startups were effectively killed by these dead products, either by destroying a business model and chances of getting investors or through acqui-hiring the best talent?
We simultaneously criticize Google for not innovating, and for taking bets that don't pan out long-term. Pick a lane?
Perhaps the problem here is simply Google needs to more loudly tag their products with "Beta"? I remembered in the mid-aught's, every google product was "in Beta."
Perhaps the problem here is simply Google needs to more loudly tag their products with "Beta"? I remembered in the mid-aught's, every google product was "in Beta."
Didn't really know about this platform, but to me it looks like it could perfectly be kept in some kind of read-only mode without costing all that much for Google.
The cost is ongoing maintenance of the code base, reponding to security issues and such, not the server hosting.
A read-only site would have very little of that sort of thing.
Static pages do not have a code base, they're just data to be served on demand.
Also it can’t really be read only because of things like GDPR compliance.
How much should Google pay for something that's not getting much usage?
Microsoft Remix, which was similar, was also shutdown:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_3D
Facebook also stopped hosting glTF.
There is definitely a pullback from the giants with regards to their web-based 3D efforts.
Facebook also stopped hosting glTF.
There is definitely a pullback from the giants with regards to their web-based 3D efforts.
Didn't see https://poly.google.com/ before! Who are the competitors/alternatives?
Sketchfab
So, can we download everything that we can, and host it somewhere else?
No, really?
I see some of the content has a license that would appear to allow it. But do any of us have the time, energy, and resources to sit down and do it?
This certainly isn't the first or last time some website with interesting content is going to go down. Maybe we should all get better at forking open source content as a matter of course.
If we don't, then I think criticizing Google for not being willing to host it is pretty lame.
No, really?
I see some of the content has a license that would appear to allow it. But do any of us have the time, energy, and resources to sit down and do it?
This certainly isn't the first or last time some website with interesting content is going to go down. Maybe we should all get better at forking open source content as a matter of course.
If we don't, then I think criticizing Google for not being willing to host it is pretty lame.
You could. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had already reposted everything on Sketchfab.
For those that aren't aware, Poly was introduced at a Google IO, alongside Sceneform and Filament, frameworks for 3D development on Android with focus on AR/VR, with managed and native APIs.
Their development is on maintenance mode for months now, and even the Android team is using Unity or pure C++ frameworks, instead of Java, or now Kotlin first APIs.
Just waiting for them to lose interest on Android, ChromeOS or even Chrome!
Their development is on maintenance mode for months now, and even the Android team is using Unity or pure C++ frameworks, instead of Java, or now Kotlin first APIs.
Just waiting for them to lose interest on Android, ChromeOS or even Chrome!
Wait, Filament is on life support?
There is activity there:
https://github.com/google/filament/graphs/contributors
https://github.com/google/filament/releases
There is activity there:
https://github.com/google/filament/graphs/contributors
https://github.com/google/filament/releases
Ah, still alive.
Then again, Sceneform was the nicer high level API, with Studio tooling integration, here is still pretty much DYI.
Then again, Sceneform was the nicer high level API, with Studio tooling integration, here is still pretty much DYI.
Your one stop shop for all things killed by Google
https://killedbygoogle.com/
https://killedbygoogle.com/
I didn’t even know this existed in the first place.
I hope that Google Tilt brush doesn't follow. It's really the main reason I obtained a VR headset...
> We appreciate you trusting us to host your assets and provide a space where they can shine.
I doubt they will in future.
I doubt they will in future.
Classic Google. Announcing shutting down of service no one has even heard before.
That's too bad. I remember finding some really nice scans/reconstructions by CyArk of historical locations and objects there: https://poly.google.com/user/4U4FhbhDQdR
Used to be you could download low-res OBJs and they made for some nice quick test scenes for rendering. Sadly, that seems to be gone now as well.
I guess https://openheritage3d.org/ is the better place for that now.
Used to be you could download low-res OBJs and they made for some nice quick test scenes for rendering. Sadly, that seems to be gone now as well.
I guess https://openheritage3d.org/ is the better place for that now.
Kind of sad, the platform looks to be a sort of creative commons / remixing community for 3d assets.
Usage seems super low, features models and scenes (which are all really good!) have likes in the mid double digits.
It is unfortunate that a larger community didn't really spring up, from what I can see the artwork that is there is good.
I suggest everyone spend some time going through and looking at some rather nice 3d scenes!
Usage seems super low, features models and scenes (which are all really good!) have likes in the mid double digits.
It is unfortunate that a larger community didn't really spring up, from what I can see the artwork that is there is good.
I suggest everyone spend some time going through and looking at some rather nice 3d scenes!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I had never heard of this thing before. I know there is this running joke of Google killing their stuff all the time, but do they just suck at launching, or at least promoting, services?
If I was Thomas Kurian I would be going scorched earth on people in other Google divisions doing this. Every single closure, no matter how minute, hurts GCP's chances.
Thomas Kurian is an empty suit. There is not leadership coming from him in any meaningful way. Especially involving actions that require him to try to make changes outside of the cloud org.
> Thomas Kurian is an empty suit.
Well if they need someone to wear his suit but yell in an angry Australian accent to get it done, I'm available at reasonable rates.
Well if they need someone to wear his suit but yell in an angry Australian accent to get it done, I'm available at reasonable rates.
Clearly a project built for the sole purpose of getting a promotion and then move on. I wonder why would they ever even consider building this thing oO.
June 30, 2020 is in the past? Did they mean 2021?
Yes, it's written in the description:
> Your assets will be available at poly.google.com until June 30, 2021
> Your assets will be available at poly.google.com until June 30, 2021
In an economy balanced less towards megacorps, a specialized hosting business might thrive
I'm still missing Google+, which was a really great and useful place before they thought they had to mimic Facebook with the post-centric design with no regards to comments.
The original design of Google+ was made me fall in love with it. Also the people, complete different spirit from the Facebook garbage.
Did no one notice that this service was set to shut down 6 months ago?
Why is this news now?
Why is this news now?
[deleted]
I wonder what will happen to TiltBrush after this?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
surprised Pikachu face
Does Google have any more space in their graveyard?
Does Google have any more space in their graveyard?
It is a Google's graveyard. They will sunset this one (stop accepting new "bodies") after 2 to 5 years, and open a new, "improved" one, with worse UX and lost features.
colour me surprised google is shutting down another product /s
Do you consider it bad that they experiment with new products?
Honestly, at this point Google products should come with some kind of versioning and labelling for commitments.
It would be far easier to choose Google services (and less irritating as a consumer) if services were labelled alpha, beta, production, and LTS, and if each of those labels had a specific duration (e.g. alpha services can vanish immediately without warning; beta have a limited lifecycle where they need to become profitable or at least self-sustaining, production are generally stable and can be relied on for a year, and LTS will be supported for a specific period of time, backed by enterprise support agreements).
But that's just crazy talk!
It would be far easier to choose Google services (and less irritating as a consumer) if services were labelled alpha, beta, production, and LTS, and if each of those labels had a specific duration (e.g. alpha services can vanish immediately without warning; beta have a limited lifecycle where they need to become profitable or at least self-sustaining, production are generally stable and can be relied on for a year, and LTS will be supported for a specific period of time, backed by enterprise support agreements).
But that's just crazy talk!
I do, for two reasons. One, Google's culture and managerial system is pretty poor, in such a way that it rewards starting things and not finishing them. That hurts consumers. Two, it feels contrary to the design of public corporations. Should Google be allowed by its owners to spend money trying out hundreds of new ideas? Or should it give profits back to shareholders who can then go do these things themselves while Google just tries to be come a really efficient, and insanely profitable search provider?
I'd advocate for the latter as a healthier way to run society with fewer tech giants of lovecraftian size slipping their tentacles into every cranny that one can stuff a million dollars into.
I'd advocate for the latter as a healthier way to run society with fewer tech giants of lovecraftian size slipping their tentacles into every cranny that one can stuff a million dollars into.
Maybe Google should label those experimental products more clearly, so users are aware and align expectations.
Like adding a "beta" label?
Depends on where you stand... If you're one of the people who comes to rely on the product, then your answer would probably be "yes".
The cost of the experimentation is people wondering what product they'll discontinue next and whether it'll be one that _they_ rely on. If you find yourself asking this often enough, you'll probably start moving out of the Google ecosystem. How is this good for Google?
Yes, I understand that products need to pay for themselves, but Google keeps drawing people into services that they then shut down. It's frustrating for users and damaging to Google. What's the cost of the damage to their reputation?
The cost of the experimentation is people wondering what product they'll discontinue next and whether it'll be one that _they_ rely on. If you find yourself asking this often enough, you'll probably start moving out of the Google ecosystem. How is this good for Google?
Yes, I understand that products need to pay for themselves, but Google keeps drawing people into services that they then shut down. It's frustrating for users and damaging to Google. What's the cost of the damage to their reputation?
I totally empathize with all the reasons you gave.
However, Google share price and market saturation tell me the whatever damage has been done is worth no follow up from them.
However, Google share price and market saturation tell me the whatever damage has been done is worth no follow up from them.
If they’re going to kill them at the same rate? Yes.
Why? Seems to it’s like running a VC fund. One hit could justify all those experiments in perpetuity.
I have very little interest in what happens behind the product so long as it both works and continues to work. Google experiments like crazy, and appears to kill off products just as quickly. The fact that they occasionally get a “hit” and earn hundreds of millions does not offset my fear that anything of theirs I depend on will be cancelled without warning.
[deleted]
Depends what you mean by bad; it hurts trust. For instance the Appengine to Appengine 2 transition is a particularly painful one for a consumer who built an entire business on it and I was part of a migration to address this.
I had heard Google is unreliable in this aspect before but after this particular experience I will unlikely use or suggest Google for anything serious.
I had heard Google is unreliable in this aspect before but after this particular experience I will unlikely use or suggest Google for anything serious.
Experimenting is fine. shutting down good products and replacing them with inferior ones (and adding a chat messenger in every product) is not.
Will there be any Google products left at the end of 2021?
Yes because how else will Google employees get their bonuses?
The question is whether the products started in 2021 will last until 2022...
The question is whether the products started in 2021 will last until 2022...
If you were running Google, what would your strategy be regarding products that can’t support themselves?
Make the source code publicly available under a permissive open source license so the community can run the software.
Scrape/generate a read-only archive of the site and host the static files for the next ~2 years before finally dropping the domain.
Did you implement this policy at any of your companies? How did it go and how much time did it take to release the software?
Less spray & pray in the first place? It's already clear that their product strategy is fruitless, can you name a Google product from the last 5 years that stuck, loved by masses and deserves to be kept operational by their own measures?
I would try switching to spending the money on acquisitions.
I would try switching to spending the money on acquisitions.
Keep them running and eat the cost.
Even if they can’t do that every time, it should at least be one of the options under consideration.
I feel like there’s often an argument that “keeping it running costs more than you think, because it would need updating” (or “it depends on legacy infrastructure that’s going away”), but I’m skeptical of that in the general case. Other than possibly security issues, there’s often little to get in the way of servers running happily with little or no maintenance for years.
Even if they can’t do that every time, it should at least be one of the options under consideration.
I feel like there’s often an argument that “keeping it running costs more than you think, because it would need updating” (or “it depends on legacy infrastructure that’s going away”), but I’m skeptical of that in the general case. Other than possibly security issues, there’s often little to get in the way of servers running happily with little or no maintenance for years.
> Even if they can’t do that every time, it should at least be one of the options under consideration.
Do you know whether it was considered?
> Other than possibly security issues, there’s often little to get in the way of servers running happily with little or no maintenance for years.
Security costs alone can be substantial. Whose department should take the budget hit for maintaining a no longer viable project?
Whose reputation should be dinged for running a non viable product?
Do you know whether it was considered?
> Other than possibly security issues, there’s often little to get in the way of servers running happily with little or no maintenance for years.
Security costs alone can be substantial. Whose department should take the budget hit for maintaining a no longer viable project?
Whose reputation should be dinged for running a non viable product?
Do you know whether it was considered?
In this particular case, I don’t know, although the lack of any positive examples to point to suggests that it’s not an option that’s typically given any weight in decision-making.
Whose department should take the budget hit for maintaining a no longer viable project?
Speaking as a user, I don’t care. Isn’t Google swimming in profit?
(I realize of course that you don’t achieve the kind of success in the first place that brings those colossal profits without making hard-nosed decisions along the way -- arguably)
Whose reputation should be dinged for running a non viable product?
Again, speaking as a user, I’d put value in keeping the “non-viable” product around, if it were one I happened to use.
I’m not expecting my answer to change anything, but it’s a general answer to a general question. What could they do differently? Answer: eat the loss.
In this particular case, I don’t know, although the lack of any positive examples to point to suggests that it’s not an option that’s typically given any weight in decision-making.
Whose department should take the budget hit for maintaining a no longer viable project?
Speaking as a user, I don’t care. Isn’t Google swimming in profit?
(I realize of course that you don’t achieve the kind of success in the first place that brings those colossal profits without making hard-nosed decisions along the way -- arguably)
Whose reputation should be dinged for running a non viable product?
Again, speaking as a user, I’d put value in keeping the “non-viable” product around, if it were one I happened to use.
I’m not expecting my answer to change anything, but it’s a general answer to a general question. What could they do differently? Answer: eat the loss.
Not to release products without a plan to support them for a certain amount of time.
Pretty much no Google products support themselves apart from GCP and Search.
Depends. Did anyone measure the rate of Google creating vs. shutting down products?
Three new messaging apps.
2025: Google Search is shutting down
I’m wondering, have you ever heard about this product? I for one have no clue what this is. How many more products does google have that you never heard about and that are not shut down?