[Aurornis]

The Google URL shortener stopped accepting new links around 2018. It has been deprecated for a long time.

I doubt it was a cost-driven decision on the basis of running the servers. My guess would be that it was a security and maintenance burden that nobody wanted.

They also might have wanted to use the domain for something else.

[cogman10]

How much of a burden could this really be?

The nature of something like this is that the cost to run it naturally goes down over time. Old links get clicked less so the hardware costs would be basically nothing.

As for the actual software security, it's a URL shortener. They could rewrite the entire thing in almost no time with just a single dev. Especially since it's strictly hosting static links at this point.

It probably took them more time and money to find inactive links than it'd take to keep the entire thing running for a couple of years.

[simonw]

"How much of a burden could this really be?"

My understanding from conversations I've seen about Google Reader is that the problem with Google is that every few years they have a new wave of infrastructure, which necessitates upgrading a bunch of things about all of their products.

I guess that might be things like some new version of BigTable or whatever coming along, so you need to migrate everything from the previous versions.

If a product has an active team maintaining it they can handle the upgrade. If a product has no team assigned there's nobody to do that work.

[Polizeiposaune]

My understanding is that (at least at one point) binaries older than about six months were not allowed to run in production. But APIs are "evolving" irregularly so the longer you go between builds the more likely something is going to break. You really need a continuous build going to stay on top of it.

Best analogy I can think of is log-rolling (as in the lumberjack competition).

[hackernudes]

Google is famously a monorepo and is basically the gold standard of CI/CD.

What does happen is APIs are constantly upgraded and rewritten and deprecated. Eventually projects using the deprecated APIs need to be upgraded or dropped. I don't really understand why developers LOVE to deprecate shit that has users but it's a fact of life.

Second hand info about Google only so take it with a grain of salt.

[zdragnar]

Simple: you don't get promoted for maintaining legacy stuff. You do get promoted for providing something new that people adopt.

As such, developing a new API gets more brownie points than rebuilding a service that does a better job of providing an existing API.

To be more charitable, having learned lessons from an existing API, a new one might incorporate those lessons learned and be able to do a better job serving various needs. At some point, it stops making sense to support older versions of an API as multiple versions with multiple sets of documentation can be really confusing.

I'm personally cynical enough to believe more in the less charitable version, but it's not impossible.

[Hammershaft]

I agree this is an overriding incentive that hurts customers & companies. I don't think there's an easy fix. Designing & creating new products require more relevant capabilities from employees for promotions then maintaining legacy code.

[chrisjj]

> I guess that might be things like some new version of BigTable or whatever coming along, so you need to migrate everything from the previous versions.

Arrival of new does not neccessitate migration.

Only departure of old does.

[mbac32768]

They deprecate internal infrastructure stuff zealously and tell teams they need to be off of such and such by this date.

But it's worse than that because they'll bring up whole new datacenters without ever bringing the deprecated service up, and they also retire datacenters with some regularity. So if you run a service that depends on deprecated services you could quickly find yourself in a situation where you have to migrate to maintain N+2 redundancy but there's hardly any datacenter with capacity available in the deprecated service you depend on.

Also, how many man years of engineering do you want to spend on keeping goo.gl running. If you were an engineer would you want to be assigned this project? What are you going to put in your perf packet? "Spent 6 months of my time and also bothered engineers in other teams to keep this service that makes us no money running"?

[fragmede]

> If you were an engineer would you want to be assigned this project?

If you're high flying, trying to be the next Urs or Jeff Dean or Ian Goodfellow, you wouldn't, but I'm sure there's are many thousands of people who are able to do the job that would just love to work for Google and collect a paycheck on a $150k/yr job and do that for the rest of their lives.

[YouWhy]

I'd like to encourage you consider the following two perspectives --

1. A senior Google leader telling the shareholders "we've asked 1% of our engineers, that's 270 people, costing $80M/year, to work on services that produce no revenue whatsoever." I don't think it would pass that well.

2. A Google middle manager trying to figure out if an engineer working exclusively on non-revenue projects is actually being useful or otherwise; this is made more complex by about 30% of the workforce trying to go for the rest and vest option provided by these projects.

[ikiris]

Because it costs money to run things, and no one wants to pay for something that they aren't getting career value for.

[lokar]

A lot of Google infra services are built around the understanding that clients will be re-built to pick up library changes pretty often, and that you can make breaking API changes from time to time (with lots of notice).

[pavel_lishin]

But if you don't downgrade the old, then you're endlessly supporting systems, forever. At some point, it does become cheaper to migrate everything to the new.

[stouset]

And you could assign somebody to do that work, but who wants to be employed as the maintainer of a dead product? It’s a career dead-end.

[rohit89]

> If a product has no team assigned there's nobody to do that work.

This seems like a good eval case for autonomous coding agents.

[sumeno]

> How much of a burden could this really be?

You know how Google deprecating stuff externally is a (deserved) meme? Things get deprecated internally even more frequently and someone has to migrate to the new thing. It's a huge pain in the ass to keep up with for teams that are fully funded. If something doesn't have a team dedicated to it eventually someone will decide it's no longer worth that burden and shut it down instead.

[saagarjha]

I assume the general problem is people using these links for bad purposes and having to deal with needing to moderate them.

[londons_explore]

I think the concern is someone might scan all the inactive links and find that some of them link to secret URL's, leak design details about how things are built, link to documents shared 'anyone with the link' permission, etc.

[cogman10]

> I think the concern is someone might scan all the inactive links

How? Barring a database leak I don't see a way for someone to simply scan all the links. Putting something like Cloudflare in front of the shortener with a rate limit would prevent brute force scanning. I assume google semi-competently made the shortener (using a random number generator) which would make it pretty hard to find links in the first place.

Removing inactive links also doesn't solve this problem. You can still have active links to secret docs.

[londons_explore]

To make the URLs actually short, you need to use most/all of the keyspace.

Back when it was made, shorteners were competing to see who could make the shortest URL, so I bet a brute force scan would find everything.

[bapak]

> You can still have active links to secret docs.

If they're have a (passwordless) URL they're not secret.

[JimDabell]

> My guess would be that it was a security and maintenance burden that nobody wanted.

Cloudflare offered to run it and Google turned them down:

https://x.com/elithrar/status/1948451254780526609

[rdtsc]

> I doubt it was a cost-driven decision on the basis of running the servers. My guess would be that it was a security and maintenance burden that nobody wanted.

Yeah I can't imagine it being a huge cost saver? But guessing that the people who developed it long moved on, and it stopped being a cool project. And depending on the culture inside Google it just doesn't pay career-wise to maintain someone else's project.

[1over137]

>The Google URL shortener stopped accepting new links around 2018. It has been deprecated for a long time.

It's a strange thing to consider 'since 2018' "a long time". Only in tech circles is this so, not in normal life.

[rany_]

I really doubt it was about security/maintenance burdens. Under the hood, goo.gl just uses Firebase Dynamic Links which is still supported by Google.

Edit: nevermind, I had no idea Dynamic Links is deprecated and will be shutting down.

[quesera]

Firebase Dynamic Links is shutting down at the end of August 2025.

[rany_]

I had no idea. It's too late to delete my comment now.

It's a really ridiculous decision though. There's not a lot that goes into a link redirection service.

[mort96]

Documents from 2018 haven't decayed or somehow become irrelevant.

[dangus]

I think the problem with URL shorteners like Google’s that includes the company name is that to the layperson there is possibly an implied level of safety.

Here is a service that basically makes Google $0 and confuses a non-zero amount of non-technical users when it sends them to a scam website.

Also, in the age of OCR on every device they make basically no sense. You can take a picture of a long URL on a piece of paper then just copy and paste the text instantly. The URL shortener no longer serves a discernible purpose.

[cbarrick]

Shorter URLs mean fewer characters to encode in a QR code.

[dangus]

And how does that matter? The QR gets read either way.

[kiicia]

No, code is smaller and more readable, also shortener means additional tracking layer

[cbarrick]

Less complex QR codes are easier to scan, especially at a distance

[EGreg]

How much does it really cost google to answer some quick HTTP requests and redirect, vs all their youtube videos etc

[resize2996]

"security and maintenance burden" == "cost" == "cost-driven decision"

[aspenmayer]

Capital inputs are one part of the equation. The human cost of mental and contextual overhead cannot be reduced to dollars and cents.

[mixdup]

Sure it can. It takes X people Y hours a day/month/week to perform tasks, including planning and digging up the context behind, related to this service. Those X people make Z dollars per year. It's an extremely simple math equation

[aspenmayer]

Emotional labor doesn’t show up on a balance sheet.