[chrisseaton]

But what do these things mean?

> commercially reasonable

> substantial economic or material technical burden

Is one engineer working on an old service to keep it alive commercially reasonable or a substantial burden? I don't know. Do you?

In practice this policy lets them shut off anything they want any time they want. Again it's their playground they can do what they want unless they signed a contract saying they'd do something else for you so I don't have a problem with it.

[joshuamorton]

I think you're ascribing an unreasonable amount of bad faith here, and, to rephrase what I had here before, you're approaching this from an engineering perspective, not a legal one. And that's not how those things work.

To be clear, that policy is a contract. And those things would be decided by a jury. And if my understanding is correct, the reasonable person standard applies. So you can answer this yourself, do you think a reasonable person would believe that your interpretation is valid?

If not, why mention it?

[lovich]

>If not, why mention it?

Because it makes more people feel comfortable enough to use your services and pay you, without actually binding you towards any sort of behavior that would cost you money. There's a direct financial incentive here to use legalese to give the semblance of reliability without having to deliver on it

[housingpost]

I’d say google earned that bad faith this year alone with what they did with maps.

[joshuamorton]

As another user mentioned, maps isn't cloud.

[dx034]

But it's Google, in the end the same CEO has to sign off on these changes (I'm sure the Maps price hike was approved by C-level and not just the Maps department).

[mempko]

Google lost our faith after shutting down countless services.

[xchaotic]

By the way, that's probably more than $100k/year if he does. Probably triple that with the overhead of the office space, HR and middle management.