41–50 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another possibility is that the legal landscape was more hostile than Google anticipated and they essentially got squeezed out.
Isn't "this didn't go the way we thought it would and we're not willing to fight for it" the reason why all their products die?
I don't really know why Google, a company, is doing what should be done by the government with no clear benefit to the bottom line. This is not to say they shouldn’t do this, but if you look at it that way, it shouldn't be surprising at all. If they really wanted to help they probably should have teamed up with the government to ensure that there is government buy in to the program.
Google needs all the good PR it can get, these days. I'd be willing to pour money into ventures like this if I was in their position, too.
As an example, about two years ago they were building something that looked poised to compete with MS Power BI and Tableau. Not mature enough at that point, but promising. I poked around and saw potential for what it could offer if I pushed it forward in my work place, but I quickly realized it was a very risky career prospect: It might not work quite so well and sure, that's fine, we'd be trying it out on that possible basis. But it might work just fine, and we migrate some clunky "enterprise" reporting over, decommission some old iron, and then... ::Poof::! Google's system is gone, end-of-lifed with a 90 day notice and then I'm left holding the bag because Google is not a reliable partner for anything outside a narrow core of the selections.
I just can't think of any reason why, if I were building any sort of business (tech or otherwise) I would incorporate google services (apart form google search ads, perhaps) into any aspect of it that I would deem "essential" or even "important". Even Drive & the associated sheets/docs/etc I look at with an eye towards "be ready to mass download the lot of it on short notice" As an example, about two years ago they w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
silicon valley: “fail fast” also silicon valley: “google shuts down too many things”
public: not interested in adopting a product that likely will disappear when I start to depend on it
TBH, while I'm all for projects that provide public uplift, it's clear that Google was never doing this completely out of the goodness of their hearts. Moreover, providing things for free here needs to be balanced with building services that provide a path out of the endemic unemployment that crushes so many people and communities.
[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/338928-google-pullin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't "this didn't go the way we thought it would and we're not willing to fight for it" the reason why all their products die?
No, it seems their products die because there's more prestige in launching a product than maintaining one.
I appreciate that Google tries new things, but I don't get why their success rate seems to fall far short of Amazon.
From the ground up, Amazon is focused on customers. Its mission statement is literally "to be Earth's most customer-centric company."
Compare with Google: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Google just isn't a customer-focused company. It seems many people who've tried to deal with their front-facing staff directly (AdWords, Pixel, Cloud, etc) have experienced this.
They don't need to be, because search/ads are a licence to print money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it seems their products die because there's more prestige in launching a product than maintaining one.
"This went poorly because we care far more about launch than execution" is really the same spirit as the gp's paraphrase.