Hacker News Reader

Comment by 99052882514569 | Hacker News Reader

They discontinue products that don't pan out and lose them money (like Chromecast Audio), and they improve features that detract from the user experience and muddy the waters in terms of ads/monetization in their view (YouTube annotations). They run their company as a constant stream of trial-and-error product launches, some of which succeed wildly and make them billions, others fail and are killed off. Makes sense to me.

Perhaps someone is confusing them with a charity or an Internet do-gooder enthusiasts club. That's unwise. You can be sure that successful services used by a lot of people will continue indefinitely, perhaps tweaked to generate more revenue. Otherwise, come on, as an avid Google+ user you must have known that the writing is on the wall for you and the other 500 avid Google+ users. No charities here.

View on HN

> Perhaps someone is confusing them with a charity or an Internet do-gooder enthusiasts club.

The amount of products that get launched and then closed is to me sign that Google is a company unable to manage product after launch (and probably even more before, for the business part). More than that it gives that message that you shouldn't use a Google product until it reaches a critical mass, or you risk to have it axed one day. As more people think this way it will be more difficult for any google product to reach that mass of users.

> They discontinue products that don't pan out and lose them money

It seems they also discontinue products that make them money and continue products that lose them money. Their exchanges with the SEC [1] seem to suggest that YouTube loses money (otherwise why wouldn't they publish the numbers?), and if that becomes known public info, it may open them up to a host of legal and political problems.

Regardless, if you discontinue products your customers are using, don't be surprised if your customers stop relying on your products.

1. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/28/sec_google_youtube/

> (otherwise why wouldn't they publish the numbers?)

To prevent competitors, providers or customers from learning how profitable this particular business is. (Probably not the case here, but it’s an actual reason for companies to disclose as little as possible about their operations.)

The issue is that publicly traded companies have a duty to shareholders to disclose this data and all companies have to follow antitrust laws. Which is why the SEC is trying to get this data. It’s pretty shady, but you’re right, it is a competitive advantage (breaking antitrust laws or disclosure laws is often advantageous... hence why the laws were written).

They discontinue stuff even if it makes money because it's a blip compared to ad revenue.

Someone looks at a product like Chromecast Audio and decides it's not really helping ads so there's no point in spending money on maintenance for it, especially with the previously mentioned stuff that Google's corporate culture does not reward sustaining/maintenance/support work.

If a money-losing product is have a positive effect on ads somehow it probably gets to live.

> They discontinue products that don't pan out and lose them money (like Chromecast Audio)

I got the Chromecast audio and think it is great.

That this was discontinued was news to me. When did that happen? Do you have any links to the announcement?

You can just, um, Google it :-)

I also got the Chromecast audio and I also think it's great. Historically, lots of great products have been discontinued because they didn't pan out, in business terms.

I went to buy one last week. Apparently discontinued Jan 2019. I just missed the boat, and I am sad.

I don't know why they didn't just add an audio jack to the normal Chromecast. Other than that aren't they identical?

Chromecast Audio was cheap and had multi-room sync. The latest Chromecast can also sync, but sends the audio over HDMI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com