[icandoit]

I like that they have a "take the flag, but dont hold the ground if it isn't worth it" approach. Learn lots and fail fast. Smaller companies can find a niche for themselves in "we are basically X that google used to do". Let someone else make the market and create your marketing, right?

Maximizing profits (and innovation) over time may mean closing something profitable now, and focusing on new potential profits. Thats great.

[jacquesm]

I hate it. It means that I'll never be able to trust some new service they launch because (1) if I adopt it it will likely get killed and (2) even if they don't they are going to let it suffer a slow death.

I'm more than happy to wait for years if I have to in case something develops accidental mass market traction in which case Google will likely support it long term.

I wonder if Google realizes how much this works against them, without 'early adopters' you don't have much chance of success, even at Google's scale. Burn your early adopters often enough and you'll end up with unused new services.

[greggman2]

I found it fun to use cassettes, laser discs, CDs, DVDs, mini discs, mp3 players even though I no longer use any of them. Also found it fun to go Atari -> Amiga -> DOS PC -> Windows. And Atari 2600 -> NES -> SNES+Genesis -> PS1 etc..

I agree it sucks when support ends but I enjoy it checking it out while it exists.

[pixelbath]

One major difference is that I can still use all those things you listed (and in many cases, do). I can't continue using Google Reader or Google Code.

There are alternatives, of course, but the burden is on me to migrate. When I'm forced to keep migrating away from Google products, I find it less and less appealing to continue using more of their products.

[gowld]

Why is Google the only acceptable vendor?

[TeMPOraL]

Yeah, great. Except for the users who Google got hooked on a given service, who then have troubles finding alternatives as Google tends to suck the oxygen out from the room whenever they release something.

[icandoit]

They can't find someone to take their money in exchange for a useful service.

That isn't a Google problem. That's our opportunity. I can't think of a single company known for riding Google's coat tails. Why aren't people responding to the enormous wealth of Google by emulating them? We don't have to be beholden to a few huge tech companies there is space for so many more players.

I try to see things I can do when other people tell me a story about who is to blame for something. It's all a matter of framing.

[yellow_postit]

Ad companies like Google tend to be winner take most markets. Thats why you see it referred to as the duopoly of Google and FB, together they have ~60% of the digital ad market.

[joshuamorton]

This doesn't address the question:

Why didn't something pop up and eat up the success left in the wake of a market Google left, like reader or inbox or wave?

[ryukafalz]

I would guess because those products weren't profitable on their own. They were propped up by Google's massive advertising business.