[pgodzin]

It's less about their reputation and has just become a meme nowadays, particularly among techies who were the few adopters of things like Wave. I don't think Google misses on and shuts down a larger percentage of things than any other company, just seems like with everything they have going on, they try more things and inherently fail on more things. It obviously sucks for the users of those things, but I'd rather the time is spent innovating and trying many different things than spending valuable engineering time supporting projects that aren't going anywhere.

[chiefalchemist]

That might be true. But it's the expectation that they don't have to be so quick to do it, especially when they are so good at mucking up launch and growth. The best example being Wave. Meanwhile Slack, an inferior effort, is laughing.

Google has a reputation for being a booty call. Fun and crazy, which is great in college. But if you're looking for a LTR a newish Google product probably is marry + kids material.

[pgodzin]

I definitely agree that it sucks when you're one of the consumers affected. But I would argue that this fail often strategy lets you quickly figure out what works and what doesn't for most consumers, and let's you prioritize accordingly and maximize net consumer value created. Obviously that comes with negatives, but I believe they are outweighed by the positives.

[chiefalchemist]

Push come to shove, I'd side with Thiel. That is many of Google's fails are staged. They need excuses / distractions from their core monopoly-esque products.

[mistermann]

> but I'd rather the time is spent innovating and trying many different things than spending valuable engineering time supporting projects that aren't going anywhere

Instead, they have some of their engineers do things like remove the ability to do custom grouping on youtube subscriptions. It often seems like they are seeing how badly they can treat their users and still remain the leader.

[Klathmon]

I've never even heard of that, and I would consider myself a heavy youtube user.

But i'm just one person, so that doesn't mean much, but do you really think they are just removing features to spite you?

What about the fact that every feature has a cost, and by removing it they remove that cost. How did that custom grouping work on mobile? on TV's? on youtube gaming? If it's not supported everywhere, it feels buggy and incomplete, which is bad not only for their image, but also for usability. What was it's discoverability? How important of a feature was it really to you?

It's easy to use these things as examples of "something they took away", but i'm confident that if I were put in their exact same situation, I would most likely make the same choice, and i'm sure i'm not alone here.

[mistermann]

Maybe you are a recent user like myself as the functionality was removed relatively recently, people have come up with various crap workarounds.

> do you really think they are just removing features to spite you?

Of course not, just curious why they are removing useful functionality. Your questions are valid, but considering Google's history of "improving" their products, I don't feel compelled to believe there is a good reason for it.

[ocdtrekkie]

When you fail frequently at things, this fail often strategy, you aren't valuing your customers. Saying they have an excuse for failing often doesn't change the effect it has on users. Which is that they can not place their trust in your products or your company, because you've made it clear you're willing to shut them down at any time.