[fyoving]

I always thought the name had something to do with it, "google plus" doesn't sound right specially for a social network, also "Hangouts" is a terrible name, it doesn't internationalize well nor does it work for an enterprise setting, and "keep" is a good app but it should be called "google notes" nevermind they already used that name on a now defunct product.

Google has been worse at naming products than they have a right to be.

[mattkevan]

Feels like the same people responsible for Mircrosoft's product decisions in the 2000s have now all moved to Google, with a slight twist in strategy.

When a Microsoft product didn't do well they called it something different and relaunched, hoping no-one realised it was the same old thing – e.g. Zune Music/Xbox Music/MSN Music/Groove Music/Microsoft Store etc.

Google now* just kills it and launches something else, sometimes more than one, hoping no-one remembers the still-cooling corpse of the previous attempt. For example, they're now on their ninth attempt [0] at a messaging service with no end in sight.

*Google Now is also dead.

[0]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/google-ninth-attempt...

[fyoving]

I don't mind the killing off of stuff that doesn't catches on it's a mark of dynamism.

[_jal]

In a backhanded way, neither do I.

When Google Reader died, it reminded me not to become dependent on other peoples' computers. I had gotten lazy and was attracted to a well done tool, and it dying was a helpful reminder that I'd been suckered, and was lucky it wasn't something more important.

I've been better at not making that mistake since.

[mattkevan]

It suggests a lack of focus, and gives users a reason to not trust their products. Why should I adopt service n when it's probably going to be shut down in 12-18 months, after the launch of service n+1?

[sowbug]

You shouldn't, because you're a member of the early majority, late majority, or laggards, in Crossing the Chasm terms. Innovators and early adopters are more comfortable trying out a startup's offering that might be imperfect or might fail.

Most people are conservative like you. Your sheer numbers are why crossing the chasm is so important for the long-term survival of a new offering.

[mattkevan]

Quite a pointed you there. Thanks for that.

I love discovering and trying out innovative new products, and have made it a large part of what I do professionally.

However, some offerings I take more seriously than others.

With Google, if it's not search, data or ad related (i.e. the stuff that makes them money), it's generally the case it's not going to be around long-term.

[fyoving]

Not really, adopting these apps is usually a modest investment on the users' part.

[underdown]

After a while it starts looking like a bloodbath

[x86_64Ubuntu]

Is there a list of Google services somewhere? I'm always astonished at how I only hear of SOO many of their services only in their obituary.

[WalterSear]

Not the list you are looking for:

https://gcemetery.co/

[CondensedBrain]

There's a whole Wikipedia page for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products

[hawski]

They changed Keep's name a few times, I don't think they are done. When I pull the app drawer in my phone I always wonder where will things be in a couple of months. Some apps have Google prefix, some don't. Some had, but now they don't. When they have the prefix, I can see only bunch of icons with the same label "Google...". It seems that now they are at no-Google-prefix phase, but I expect to see it changed a couple of times.

Keep naming history went somewhere like this: Keep, Google Keep, Notatki Keep (Notatki for Notes in Polish). So I had to relearn a couple of times where they were.

Chromecast app had it even worse, because at one time it merged or became Home. Of course it had it's Google-prefix phase AFAIR. It probably went something like this: Chromecast, Google Cast, Google Home, Home.

[aerovistae]

Completely agreed. It's because the name sounds like it's referring to the company instead of a product.

I'm happy to use Gmail, which comes across as its own thing, but I might be a little bit more reluctant to use Google mail. I'm happy to use YouTube, but Google YouTube? I don't know.

Internet companies' names tend to refer to their flagship product, and become synonymous with it. But when they release other things with their name in front of it, like Google plus, it just sounds corporate.

[Izkata]

> I'm happy to use YouTube, but Google YouTube? I don't know.

Sure we do: Google Video was a competitor to YouTube that few used. Then they bought YouTube, and eventually killed Google Video.

[tasty_freeze]

"Hangouts" might not sound enterprisy, but that hasn't prevented "Slack" from doing well there.

[gist]

> Google has been worse at naming products than they have a right to be.

Driven by engineers and not creatives. And even if you have creatives driving the product (naming or otherwise) it still won't make sense to the engineers who are the final deciders. [1]

[1] I don't mean there are engineers but that the base people who are in power come from or think like engineers vs. creatives. (Think Walt Disney vs. Eric Schmidt or Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates).

[panda88888]

Agreed. TBH Google+ should be named Hangout, lol. And Hangout should be Google Chat (or similar).