[tablespoon]

>> Doing that once, yeah, doing that over and over, no so much.

> What do you mean? It's always good move to kill a product that loses money for the company.

Look at the Ars Technica article I was responding to. Google has failed at chat apps repeatedly for a long time, to the point where it's an embarrassment AND they've created a self-reinforcing vicious cycle of failure. The smart decision for users is to avoid any Google chat app like the plague, because it will inevitably be killed, which means those apps will also fail for lack of users.

A business doesn't have infinite tries to get something right. Eventually they burn up all their credibility. They should kill them all, and stop developing new ones, completely exiting the space.

[throwawaylinux]

I know they have repeatedly scrapped them and repeatedly made new ones. That's the whole basis for the discussion we're having.

The question is what their strategy is. Obviously they know this too. The idea that nerds on HN know what is best for the company's brand or reputation is dubious at best. Google is (allegedly) one of the most valuable brands in the world, and more trustworthy than Microsoft or Apple or Amazon (https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-tiktok-least-trusted-...).

Sure us supernerds will guffaw and chortle into our neckbeards to one another and deride Google for killing lots of things, but how much does that actually hurt their bottom line or brand value?