[iainmerrick]

Keep them running and eat the cost.

Even if they can’t do that every time, it should at least be one of the options under consideration.

I feel like there’s often an argument that “keeping it running costs more than you think, because it would need updating” (or “it depends on legacy infrastructure that’s going away”), but I’m skeptical of that in the general case. Other than possibly security issues, there’s often little to get in the way of servers running happily with little or no maintenance for years.

[tomcam]

> Even if they can’t do that every time, it should at least be one of the options under consideration.

Do you know whether it was considered?

> Other than possibly security issues, there’s often little to get in the way of servers running happily with little or no maintenance for years.

Security costs alone can be substantial. Whose department should take the budget hit for maintaining a no longer viable project?

Whose reputation should be dinged for running a non viable product?

[iainmerrick]

Do you know whether it was considered?

In this particular case, I don’t know, although the lack of any positive examples to point to suggests that it’s not an option that’s typically given any weight in decision-making.

Whose department should take the budget hit for maintaining a no longer viable project?

Speaking as a user, I don’t care. Isn’t Google swimming in profit?

(I realize of course that you don’t achieve the kind of success in the first place that brings those colossal profits without making hard-nosed decisions along the way -- arguably)

Whose reputation should be dinged for running a non viable product?

Again, speaking as a user, I’d put value in keeping the “non-viable” product around, if it were one I happened to use.

I’m not expecting my answer to change anything, but it’s a general answer to a general question. What could they do differently? Answer: eat the loss.