Oh good, the company that constantly bails on it's ventures is starting a new one in a space that is far from being realized still.
Seriously, if what's the goal? Being a supporting network for gaming infrastructure?
Seriously, if what's the goal? Being a supporting network for gaming infrastructure?
HN loves to point fingers when company stands still. Heck, we made a teaching moment out of Kodak and others who failed to innovate and relied too much on their cashcows.
On the other hand, we proclaim nice-sounding ideas such as being aware of sunk cost fallacy and how everybody should say no more. We talk about being data-driven and dont go by what gut says. Beware of the vocal minority. Dont be afraid to pivot or let go. We tell others dont wait for your products to be perfect to launch. Get it out there, test the market and iterate.
HN has their biases (I can build that in a weekend!) but the recent discourse of "OMG! they are going to desecrate it" is very silly.
This is a significant distinction. It's also a massive deterrent. Who builds on experimental? Google isn't incentivized to do this. So, everything new Google puts out is hence, experimental.
It's not an old joke. You're just getting tired of it.
You're basically invalidating all of these engineers who believe in a thing called "trust," and undervaluing it with a statement like this.
Joke? There's no need for the false dichotomy.
Google in particular has the organizational attention span of a goldfish on meth, and many of us have been burned one, two, or three times by their recurrent habits of setting something awesome up and then killing it off a short time later with no sane alternatives in place.
This reputation is entirely earned[1]. The safe thing to do if you don't want to sign up for a sudden migration headache in the future is assume that any new Google product is another symptom of their "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" mentality, and that it won't last for more than a year or two.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discon...
(For bonus points, do a mental exercise and note how many of the "absorptions" lack the features of their standalone counterparts)
Honestly there's a really good blog post/article waiting to be written grouping and classifying shuttered google projects into groups based on purposes, because for a lot of them, they aren't created to be successes or make money, but for other business reasons, legal precedents, creating competition or disrupting a particular business segment, etc.
I'll wait until my mom tells me about it.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but isn't that effectively how Silicon Valley as a whole operates? Most startups putter along for a few years before running out of money and getting shuttered. A couple become surprise successes and take off.
Google is effectively just a single corporation acting like a hive of startups.
Admittedly, there are other people in this space, but I figure they'd find a way to make the incentives pretty hard to pass up.