I maintain the only reason Google ever shut any product down was because they weren’t able to extract useful data from it fast enough. It’s the only reason any of their products exist.
For many of the services they shut down, they accomplished what they wanted.
Sometimes, the purpose isn’t to create a shiny new product people enjoy and will pay for
Sometimes, the purpose is to create competition for a product you don’t like, make sure they fail by having a decent competing offering, and then shutting the offering down when the threat of competition has passed
I also think another aspect could be development of technolog; having a real userbase that provides real feedback and finds any issues that a bunch of QA techs can’t, and once the technology is made / knowledge is gained, scrap the service to apply the gained knowledge elsewhere.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
A newer way to harvest data for them, I’m sure.
I maintain the only reason Google ever shut any product down was because they weren’t able to extract useful data from it fast enough. It’s the only reason any of their products exist.
Disagree
For many of the services they shut down, they accomplished what they wanted.
Sometimes, the purpose isn’t to create a shiny new product people enjoy and will pay for
Sometimes, the purpose is to create competition for a product you don’t like, make sure they fail by having a decent competing offering, and then shutting the offering down when the threat of competition has passed
I also think another aspect could be development of technolog; having a real userbase that provides real feedback and finds any issues that a bunch of QA techs can’t, and once the technology is made / knowledge is gained, scrap the service to apply the gained knowledge elsewhere.
Or they’re just really inept. :P
Google + being a prime example? /s