Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by haunter 1246 days ago
This is also good for the future because Google will take down the update site on December 31
1 comments

Because of course they will. I mean, it might cost them $10 annually to keep it up?

There’s also something awfully meta about Google discontinuing a support-page for their discontinued product…

> Because of course they will. I mean, it might cost them $10 annually to keep it up?

For large tech companies, it's most likely due to organizational reasons. Someone (likely some team) has to own any component/subsystem and be responsible for its maintenance. This obviously comes at a cost of the teams' other projects (read bonus OKRs), a direct consequence is that it becomes hard to permanently rehome a dead-end project like the Stadia controller, best you can hope is a temporary reprieve from a sympathetic team.

OT1H, I hear you and that was my suspicion too: they tossed the site into some nginx pod on some k8s cluster and those things don't live forever

But, for a discontinued product, isn't the information static and thus the GCS "turn this bucket into a webserver and don't bother me anymore" ( https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/static-website#example... ) seems like even less than the cited $10/yr. If the next question is "to which Project does the GCS bucket get billed?" then I'm pretty sure GCP gives away tiny storage to anyone with an email

Are Google teams even allowed to use GCS?
I wonder why companies don’t just donate dead projects “to the community” more often: find a volunteer maintainer willing to take the project on; get them set up with ownership rights over a clone of the project on a non-corp-internal SCM; ensure all branding and IP is stripped from the project; and then just walk away. Link to this “third party” effort when anyone asks for support, mentioning that it is unsupported.
Licensing. Especially when hardware is concerned. Google, big as they are, don't own the rights to NXP or especially Broadcom's IP, and so they can't.
Google (in theory) isn't making any more of these controllers, nor updating the firmware anymore

Surely there's no clause that says they have to perpetually license old firmware binaries?

If they want to perpetually distribute old firmware binaries they have to perpetually license them
Because they are risk averse and there is no possible upside so they eliminate it completely to avoid any possible downside.
if the update was just an executable, it wouldn't require maintenance, just hosting. They chose to have the update use a webservice. That's on them. I'm not mad about it. I use Linux, so I was able to update my controller on Chrome/Linux. I expected to need to borrow a Windows computer.
It costs money and doesn't gain you any (when you don't consider the probably significant good will).
1. Google probably uses IP owned by the chip manufacturer (nxp).

2. Google, famously, uses a “monorepo”. One of the perks of this is that it allows a significant amount of code-reuse. They may not want to commit to sharing all the internal libraries they’ve built.

They just fired 12,000 people, you think they kept the person in charge of running support pages for dead projects?
I mean, are we surprised? Google's product expertise is in discontinuing products after all.
They’ve taken down the discontinuation pages for talk.google.com and reader.google.com. Reader redirects to a 404 page, but Talk is NXDOMAIN entirely.