I don't think Google cares whether its users are "passionate" or not. They've reached market saturation, so further spread of their products through word-of-mouth (via passionate users and such) isn't a goal at this time. With regard to their Internet service products, their goal seem to be to monetize the user base effectively, while avoiding wasting funds on unnecessary developer time. To that end, many of their pr…
Google themselves has actually built very few successful products outside of search. Half of what they build internally they kill and the other half is acquisitions, many of which they also kill. Sometimes I even wonder about things like GSuite. When does the 2-year sunset period start?
In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
191–200 of 352 posts
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#192There is always so much vitriol on HN about these kinds of announcements. I've never understood why. Google presumably has lots of data and feedback from people using Inbox, and determined that it wasn't useful enough or widespread enough to justify ongoing investment. Why is this surprising or shocking? This happens all the time in commercial and open source software. The internet is great, but unfortunately has the…
To make a bad analogy (sorry) in response to your "lots of data and feedback", what Google repeatedly does is the equivalent of walking out into a crowd and yelling "HEY FREE HOT DOGS AT 1600 AMPHITHEATER PARKWAY" only one single time, and then concluding a week later that, even though initially the people who heard about the free hot dogs came by last week, since nobody is coming by for hot dogs anymore that people don't want free hot dogs. Remember Duo? Allo? Even Hangouts Chat from earlier this year is probably unknown to most people because google's stopped yelling in crowds about it.
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#193I don't think Google cares whether its users are "passionate" or not. They've reached market saturation, so further spread of their products through word-of-mouth (via passionate users and such) isn't a goal at this time. With regard to their Internet service products, their goal seem to be to monetize the user base effectively, while avoiding wasting funds on unnecessary developer time. To that end, many of their pr…
You're right that passionate users can no longer effectively bring new people to Google. But passionate users can lead people away from Google.
The learning curve to a Google free life is steeper than many people want to take.
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#194And no whataboutism please, this deprecarion event is about Inbox, not some other product.
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have commented, there is a variety of alternatives to Google for the majority of their products, and the discussion has been had on HN a number of times . [0]. What really annoys me is how woven Google has now become to our working day processes. It's all very well having open-source alternatives for private use, but many (I included) used Inbox for work where we are obligated to use Gmail. This feels like…
I agree, it's mind boggling how Google managed to work their way into such major corporations and organizations. At a company I used to work for Google massively (massively) undercut Microsoft for Gmail and Google Docs vs O365. I guess like with Android, no one stopped to wonder why they're giving it away practically free?
It's actually rather frightening for the open web. Kids can't get away from Youtube. Even on mobile devices, so many searches promote Google products over anything else. Try looking for an address on an iPhone. You can't even copy/paste the address or open it in Apple Maps. it automatically brings up Google Maps and prompts you to install it.
I ended up switching to Bing on my iPhone because I got so sick of Google's invasive tactics. On my device.
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#196There is always so much vitriol on HN about these kinds of announcements. I've never understood why. Google presumably has lots of data and feedback from people using Inbox, and determined that it wasn't useful enough or widespread enough to justify ongoing investment. Why is this surprising or shocking? This happens all the time in commercial and open source software. The internet is great, but unfortunately has the…
Hi (ex-googler here, although i wasn't on this project). Product usage isn't a one-way street. It requires coordination from marketing, customer support, and ongoing product development. Inbox was yet another product that Google spent years on internally, launched with a bang, and then basically forgot about while the PMs got their promo and moved on to new projects, and so on. To make a bad analogy (sorry) in respon…
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've worked in large orgs it makes sense. They had a strategic priority a while back to 'make mail good on mobile' ... whereas now they are folding it all back into the gmail umbrella because the overall strategic impetus would be to be gmail founded. So, short term strategy now important with the longer term issues of product portfolio. Collapse the 'good bits' of inbox into Gmail and move forward. You have to…
I think most of it can be explained by your very first sentence. Gmail is 15 years old. It has massive institutional inertia and clout. Hundreds of engineers ( https://www.quora.com/How-large-is-the-Gmail-team ), probably a similar number of PHBs. Some of those people have spent their entire professional lives working on Gmail. They are loath to admit it sucks. Understandably. You don't just phase that sort of thing…
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should have switched to bare metal, things like AWS cost a ton more than you realize, it just looks like a good deal because you have smaller cost up front. But in the long run managing your own systems at places like Softlayer can save you a bundle. EDIT: I don't care about downvotes, but if you are going to do it at least leave a comment of why you think I am wrong.
EDIT: I don't care about downvotes, but if you are going to do it at least leave a comment of why you think I am wrong. I look forward to the national election where a politician stops what they're doing to complain every single time someone doesn't vote for them, and interrupt what's happening to demand an explanation. That isn't how voting works. " cost a ton more than you realize " - unless you look at the prices…
Maybe I will agree, or disagree. Maybe I will learn something. But simply downvoting because you don't agree leaves no new information for me or anybody else reading to learn something.
I could be horribly wrong. And the process of being told why somebody thinks I am wrong might inlighten somebody else even if I hold to my initial view.
That being said, the voting system AFAIK on HN is more about being relevant to the topic, and less about agreeing. Although in practice upvotes tend to be more about agreeing and down votes more about being off topic or illrevent.
Not everybody can downvote, so when somebody does it means they have been around long enough to gain enough magical internet points to do so. So they might have some real insight that could help a OP or inlighten others. Along with making a good conversation even if no agreement is made at the end.
> I look forward to the national election where a politician stops what they're doing to complain every single time someone doesn't vote for them, and interrupt what's happening to demand an explanation.
Nobody is a politician here, what does that have to do with anything? This entire site was designed to talk about things, so I am hardly interrupting "what's happening"
> "cost a ton more than you realize" - unless you look at the prices for the contract you're agreeing to? Y'know, like you do?
AWS has public pricing, I can compare them to other publicly priced places. I don't need a contract that simply don't exist in most cases.
> "Should have" - telling someone what their company should have done, without even knowing what their company /is/, let alone what they were trying to achieve and what constraints they had on their available options. Assuming or implying that the cheaper thing is always the more correct thing and no other factors can change that.
I can compare server for server , compute for compute, and all the above. I don't really need to know what our anybody else is doing with a system to understand the raw resources you can get from the services offered and compare them based off that.
Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#199Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users
#200There is always so much vitriol on HN about these kinds of announcements. I've never understood why. Google presumably has lots of data and feedback from people using Inbox, and determined that it wasn't useful enough or widespread enough to justify ongoing investment. Why is this surprising or shocking? This happens all the time in commercial and open source software. The internet is great, but unfortunately has the…