Also if there is a Google product that does something I need then I will almost always pick a worse alternative because I don't want to deal with the hassle of moving when Google eventually shuts down their thing.
I can't be the only one.
It's these smaller apps that suffer because $400/month isn't enough to make a difference at Google scale. They do have a mandate to keep innovating but it's a strange cycle where the company produces some great software and then abandons it due to lack of success, because it's already too successful.
Hire was a G Suite app.
But since I started to use GCP 2012 a number of services has been left to die by abandonement.
Most of the times you get a clear migration path to a new service, but sometimes you dont such as when they kill the devserver for appengine standard in go 1.12 without giving a proper migration strategy. Everyone I know dread when they decide to deprecate go 1.11 support.
I'm not holding my breath.
I'm super confused by their blog post:
So for regular old consumer Hangouts (formerly part of G+) is that going away too? What happens to the phone number I have attached to it. .. I feel like I should port that way from Google sooner rather than later.
If it's not ad sales or search - I don't trust Google enough to base long term projects on it. _Maybe_ add gmail to that, perhaps. Possibly Suite (since at least they charge for it). For me at least, Google Cloud is still not quite emerged from "interesting, but not sure it'll be around long term yet" status. I'll use it as part of a multicloud architecture, or for prototypes/short-term projects. But I haven't yet been able to convince myself to recommend jumping both feet into a GoogleCloud-specific project architecture - in the same way I happily recommend/design/deploy AWS-specific projects all the time.
Google Cloud as a whole is also safe. It's the individual given products you have to worry about disappearing. It's already a very large business. Even in third place it's going to be at least a $15-$20 billion business over time. They're not shutting that down.
And honestly, I am really glad that google products are dying. I switched to DDG 6 months ago, Firefox 1.5 years ago and I dont miss either of the products. Hopefully big tech monopolies will start crumbling one way or the other.
The fact that they are not doing things like that, repeatedly, is a bad sign for me. Well, at least they seem to keep search, maps, and gmail around for some time, because these obviously generate money for their main line of business, advertising.
Maybe they don’t like being #5 best product in the category or something.
The constant churn of companies getting acquired by Google continually justifies the anger on HN after a Google acquisition of their favourite products IMO, there’s a high probability they’ll shut it down even when Google claims they want to continue the business and even if it’s successful by a lot of other business’s standards.
$380 million they paid is no acquihire.
So, they're just shovelling the money into a furnace? Or perhaps you just mean that Google buying the company a member of the board founded isn't arms-length enough to justify the term, and this falls into some form of theft or bribery?
If it hasn't been obvious yet to managers watching this, Google's software is not a safe investment for you to make for your company. It is only a matter of time until you will suddenly have to divert your time to figuring out how to migrate away from a Good Tool to a Less Good Tool because Google built it well then took it away. Swapping a tool like this is an abysmal resource sink for you and your company.
This is not the first, second, third, fourth or even fifth time this has happened, but this one should hit close to home.
Google's software is not a safe investment for you to make for your company.
With that said, I'd feel fine relying on VMs, disks, managed SQL, managed Kubernetes, etc. Maybe I'm too optimistic. And Google is giving exactly the guarantees they promised - 1 year of notice before shutting down a product.
This is mostly true, but a bit more nuanced than one might think. Let's take the Go 1.9 runtime for App Engine. It was deprecated on June 27, 2019.  Existing deployments will keep working for an undetermined time, however new deployments won't be accepted starting October 1, 2019. That's just a 3 month notice! The offered solution is to migrate to Go 1.11 , however that's not straightforward either, because the Go 1.11 runtime is using 2nd generation App Engine, which means a bunch of App Engine specific code that you had working before will need to be rewritten. To make things even more spicy there's already a migration path to Go 1.12 which deprecates every single App Engine specific API.  Google is basically slowly shutting down the whole 1st generation App Engine.
(Given their history I'd expect it's more likely they build their own BEAM and put a new language on top of it)
At least with a startup you can count on them to, well, try.
This was one of the reasons I loved WhatsApp so much early on when that seemed to be the way it was going: a healthy >1B USD company with no dependency except on users.
As the WhatsApp story and many other tells us this isn't always safe, but it should be a safer bet than anyone clearly going the "unicorn or nothing" way from the start.
But WhatsApp is an insane success story on its own. Back then, around 20 engineers handling billions of messages per day, with their own servers and spending zero dollars in advertisement and using a non-standard language (Erlang).
They had signalled quite early that they where going to charge money, they had started charging money from at least a subset of users and they were still growing like crazy, 200 million monthly active users since april that year it seems based on the statistics I found.
To me that sounds profitable.
This is not a decision any startup would make. So there's at least some difference, in Googles disfavor.
Especially if I'm working for a large business.
One of the reasons big companies move slower is maturity. You are expected to keep doing something once you put it out there. Otherwise you're seen as a risky partner and avoided.
The only other way to go is to make the things you support so simple that people could, if pressed, do their own maintenance if you pull a fade. Abandonware with a prayer of being adopted by internal people.
Google generates ~63% of all searches , with Bing ~25%. I'd hardly call that unchallenged or Standard Oil sized.
And as eyes move from search ads to places like Facebook or other platforms, they stand to lose more and more as they don't control where people are. Being so dependent on one source of revenue is very dangerous for them.
Interesting fact: Rockefeller's worth was 1-2% of US GDP, which in that metric would be $500 billion - $1 trillion now.
US GDP is around $20 trillion so 2% would be $400 billion.
Google is worth twice that with an $800 billion market cap, or 4% of US GDP.
Here is the source on Google being 4% of US GDP: 
Rockefeller being worth 1-2% of US GDP is sourced from  on his Wikipedia page.
Math checks out.
More fun facts:
Apple is also around 4% .
Microsoft is around 5% .
Outside of the tech space...
Walmart is around 1.5% .
Goldman Sachs is around 0.35% .
McDonalds is at ~ 0.08% .
Boeing is hovering at about 1% .
0 - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28google+market+cap%2...
1 - http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about...
2 - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28apple+market+cap%29...
3 - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28microsoft+market+ca...
4 - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28walmart+market+cap%...
5 - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28goldman+sachs+marke...
6 - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28mcdonalds+market+ca...
7 - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28boeing+market+cap%2...
Oops - correct :)
I mentioned Rockefeller's worth, not Standard Oil. Comparing Google to Rockefeller is apples to oranges. Standard Oil was worth far more than Rockefeller.
Google founders are each worth ~$50B, 0.25% of GDP.
It might not be visible yet, just like the ice cube who has been heated from -100°C to -5°C and still doesn't melt, but at this point it would take very little energy to thaw Googles goodwill reserves.
Anything they can do to return to former status as "defender of the Internet" might be worth huge investments for that alone.
Unobviously a poor metaphor.
energy to heat 1kg from -100°C to -5°C: 200kJ
energy to melt 1kg from -5°C (as ice) to 0°C (as water): 345kJ
Water has lots of extremely non-linear behaviours!!!
Do you have a better idea? Either another example or a better way to tell it so it becomes true?
I guess I could start somewhere closer to 0°K, but that wouldn't mean much I guess?
Maybe it is more like water spilling over the top of an earthen dam. It only takes incrementally more water to happen, but is very bad for the structure of the dam and things downstream.
Is caused by a special property of water? Or is it just the discontinuity arising from taking 0°C ice to 0°C water?
If it's the latter it applies to all solid to liquid transitions (entropy of fusion).
Rather: Google is an advertising company, ...
After that it doesn't matter coz you'll probably move on to the next company(2-3 years) and it won't matter that the google product you adopted failed/was shut down since you'll be in a different tech time/space continuum bubble and will have adopted newer things.
This is really a problem of Google just not bothering to invest in things long term. It's a known problem and I don't think Google cares coz none of these products really disrupt the market or bring in the big bucks which is all tech giants care about.
Hey companies, if you want people to make good decisions then you need to invest in retention above all else.
Google acquihired Bebop to get Diane Greene as head of Google Cloud (which is why this product was lumped under their cloud division), but she left Google earlier this year. No reason for Google to keep it running now.
The general struggle for Google is the difficulty in choosing a strategy for serving both
1. Enterprise customers with custom / manual / labor intensive needs
2. Fully automated products and processes for a wide spectrum of users who need to adopt to Google and not the other way around
To sell big Enterprise contracts, Google needs to listen to these customers specific needs and promise solutions. I don't think Google has this capability in its DNA. This must be very frustrating from someone like Diana Green that is used to operate a company in a different way. Could be the reason that she left her role.
There were a lot of UX quirks that made it feel like an outside consultancy slapped some “Material” design on a pre-built app and called it a day.
Really I would’ve liked to see a product like this be a meta-layer on top of GSuite productivity tools. ie Interview feedback forms should be a Forms form, the job board should be more like Sites.
From a strategic standpoint I had no idea why they pursued this particular product. The output here never seemed particularly well-aligned to any strategic motive.
A manager wanted a promotion
Google's replacement motto for "Don't be evil" is "Launch and forget."
My favourite one they killed was this one though:
Google Ride Finder
Killed almost 10 years ago, Google Ride Finder was a service that used GPS data to pinpoint and map the location of taxis, limos, and shuttle vehicles available for hire in 10 U.S. metro areas. It was over 4 years old.
A taxi app... Close, but no cigar.
They marketed Hire by Google hard. Glad we didn't sign up and waste integration effort on this.
“Flutter’s ability for real time UI iteration is a game changer in the way we polish and refine designs” -
It is very unprofessional to try to get companies to change their processes to depend in a product that you are closing.
I wont touch Google products with a 10ft pole for my company any time soon. It is a liability.
Hm. Does that price seem too high? When I think small business I think mom and pop restaurants or utility stores. Would they be willing to pay so much per month just to hire people which they'll inevitably have to pay for anyways? Do small and medium businesses hire at such large rates to justify this expense?
Obviously I'm just armchair generaling here, I'm sure G Suite's sales team crunched the numbers to make sure they made sense. But they don't make sense to me, and I'm wondering if someone can explain why.
Hire works really well for us since we're on G Suite for everything else. I'm about as annoyed about this sunset as I was annoyed about the sunset over Google Inbox. Google's commitment to building tools to make digital life easier is really faltering. We used a handful of Hire competitors before settling on Hire... hopefully the year before EOL will be long enough for one of them to emerge as the best alternative for us.
Actual small businesses — like local shops, handy men, movie theaters, etc. likely still use Craigslist, or something much cheaper like Zip Recruiter.
500 is almost PME which stands for Petites et Moyennes Entreprises, literally small and medium sized business.
Exactly in both definitions, the French and the German, the M means MEDIUM. 500 is NOT a SMALL business. It's at least a medium one.
Let me know how I can help if anyone has questions! We're a great alternative to Google Hire.
What is the feedback and calendaring integrations like with Lever and gSuite?
Lever's G Suite integration for both calendaring and email is quite extensive. In addition, we have a feature called Easy Book that enables candidates to book their own interview times, especially useful for phone screens. Here's more with some screenshots: https://help.lever.co/hc/en-us/articles/360025622851-How-to-...
We built a resume software which focuses exactly on working with ats (https://rezi.io/)
We plan to make resume formats specific to certain types of ATS, Lever being amongst the first we hope to work with.
Any way this message can spark that conversation? Our users & hiring partners love the idea.
I'm keen to start offering some lightweight integrations for a few ATS - is there anyone you can point me to in Lever that might be able to kick off that discussion?
Thx & hope Lever scoops up a bunch of customers from the transition (if Hire even had a bunch of customers!).
In this case, I know that Diane Greene advocated for her team to have the opportunity to launch their product, which they had been developing in stealth from 2012-2016.
I haven't worked there for some time now, but Google has historically supported teams in launching into the market through experiments, labs, new product launches, etc. However, Google's current scale makes it very difficult for a new product to be worth improving and maintaining. They must make billions in revenue directly or indirectly to show up in a meaningful way. In most cases, products are given a few years, tested for impact, and ultimately the most likely outcome is that a product will fail when that is the bar. It is not entirely different from the reality of a startup—the majority of startups don't last either.
Products that are organically created within Google (even Google Hire, created via acquihire) have a pretty awful track record.
Maps is ~15 years old (and was the combination of several acquisitions in the maps space: Keyhole, Where2, Zipdash, etc.)
Chrome is 11 years old + extremely successful, but my point still stands.
I can much more likely rely on a 10 person startup who're turning over, say 50mil and clearing a few mil a year of profit after all expenses. That's a stable reliable business.
At Google, that's defined as "failure" and designed straight to the Google Graveyard.
Even a 1 person startup making a few hundred thou per year is a better bet for me - I'd sooner have Pinboard as a critical dependancy for my business than any shiny new Google toy like, say, Flutter...
There is (practically) no "search" revenue that is not "ads" revenue. Ads is close to 90% of all Google's revenue. The remainder is not broken down in the earnings report, although I suspect it's largely their cloud computing business. Thus, Google's two revenue lines are really ads and cloud, with the latter much smaller than the former, and probably with a lower margin too.
They're apparently not interested in offering an ad service that just shows ads related to the topic of the site/article (or that have identified the types/topics of sites/articles they wish the ad to appear on), the way that e.g. magazine ads would be "targeted".
A year is a pretty long time!
I am curious about usage numbers on some of these though.... like if these products were actually really successful I don't think Google would actually kill them.
We are aggregating jobs from ATS-es.
There's this sense that we're constantly being baited and switched. No small company could afford to give its users whiplash as often as Google does.
Using the google brand provides(provided) a sense of respectability and deeper pockets/longer term vision.
Some users, I believe rightfully so, feel betrayed by google's lackadaisical approach to starting and shutting down projects. Especially when comparing the effort to market vs create a great product. Like google +, it was shoved down people's throats, only to be tossed.
I know how to evaluate a startup's potential failure. Who's funding them? How much money do they have? How popular are they? How solid's the product? What are the founders like? Heck, for a lot of small startups, you can just ask to talk to the CEO if it's what it will take to close the deal. And I have a good idea of the conditions under which they'll throw in the towel.
But Google product success seems to depend entirely on internal politics, which are completely opaque to me. As traek explains, this product only exists at Google because Google wanted to hire the company's CEO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20815572
And it stopped existing because she left Google. How could I possibly predict that? Better just to stay away, I figure, unless it's an obvious money-maker or has high strategic value.
I cannot ever expect to "negotiate with Google".
It's pretty easy really, and you don't have to predict Google executive tenures: if the founder of a service you are considering using sells the company to Google and runs a completely different product division afterwards, even if that service doesn't immediately sunset and lives on as a vanity project, it will die of neglect. The founder focuses on the job they were hired for, and the competition will not remain in stasis like the service inevitably does.
Our definition of 'easy really' might be very different. In fact, whenever someone talks about complex topics and starts off with 'easy really' I cringe. There's a certain perspective people have to have to use such language, and that perspective is very far from my general understanding that 'reality is complex'.
I'm comfortable treating this as a universal constant. Any company that buys a startup and immediately promotes their CEO to a different department never cared about the startup they just bought.
VC's Product Name
Why? Because then his name is behind it. Instead, he invests.
Google could choose to create products that aren't google branded as an experiment. Then they can win/fail on their own merit.
But google doesn't choose to do that. They use their branding and marketing machine. They know they are using their brand to create trust. Then they betray it.
Seems pretty clear to me and it even seems odd the naivete some people here display, it's almost as if they had an interest in seeing google as a force of good, when they clearly removed their 'do no evil'.
There is a choice being made, and the choice has a reason. They have every right to do as they please with their brand, we have every right to find it sneaky, dishonest and something that makes us less likely to get burned again (jumping on board other google projects)
For better or worse, brands exist. I love my Nike shoes because they are super comfortable and last a long time. I might be able to get cheaper sneakers that are just as good. But I'm loyal to the brand because they consistently produce great products. If that stopped being the case, I'd stop paying the Nike brand premium. Can Nike experiment? Sure, hopefully not under the Nike brand (in fact, that does happen, many companies in many industries own more than one brand and keep the flagship brand separate from more experimental brands on a PR basis)
I was also a PM at Google from 2007-2011. A big part of why I left and founded Lever is that I'm super passionate about enterprise software, and vertical enterprise software (even in huge markets) isn't aligned well with Google's core business.
That's exactly the point that everyone who says "Don't use google products" is missing. Anything horizontal (eg GSuite basics, docs/sheets, mail, calendar) are relatively safe.
Anything vertical isn't going to move the needle in Google's view of their finances.
MS and Oracle have had issues with their "verticals" in the past, but they weren't actually big enough that they could kill them off, given their reliance on enterprise customers for their income.
FAANG (except Netflix obv) aren't dependent on enterprise customers. Facebook and Apple don't really offer enterprise products and AWS/Google have, basically Workspaces/Workdocs for AWS and GSuite from Google.
Both Facebook and Google are "vertical" in that they sell ads on the internet, or, more accurately, they provide access to their users to advertisers. Everything else is noise.
So the general rule is "Don't buy vertical services from a horizontal company".
Someone already has a PR to add Hire: https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/pull/567
Exactly the same. Google often shuts down a service in favor of alternatives it already have, like Hangouts=>Duo and Inbox=>GMail.
Proprietary stuff is starting to become flakey not in the uptime sense but pure lifespan. Almost like planned obsolescence became a thing with gear
It comes with it's own set of challenges, but I've found with the advent of docker it's quit easy to test running your own xyz server.
So my current thinking is build it on VM but glue it together with cloud...ideally with something that is available in multiple clouds. e.g. GCP and Azure both have pub/sub and both have cloud functions
I wish they would take the approach of making it trivial for me to host an open source version myself on Google Cloud rather than just throwing away the work: it would let them keep making money and mean that I could actually have enough faith to use their products.
Edit: disclaimer, I’m founder and CEO there.
So even if they shut down Photo one day you will probably have time to download all your photos. Even today you can just download all your photos at once if you have already deleted them from your phone/computer.
Btw you should be aware that if you bulk-download your photos from Google they might be in lower resolution and they will be missing some information (e.g. the geo-coordinates). So it might be a good idea to also store your (original) photos on your own devices.
Hire would have been launched by the acquired team, all of whole would have had a similar three year earn out. If the few key people leave, suddenly there’s nobody left to maintain the product.
1. The code can be tightly tied to their internal systems and infra. It may just be more expensive to separate it out, not to mention engineers at Google are smart enough to avoid such projects (I mean, separate it out so that they can sell it) with no value to career.
2. Its success (of whatever scale) is probably tied to Google branding. Once it goes away, its probably as good as yet another job listing site which isn't super hard to make.
That said, they paid $380 million for it when it was called Bebop so it’s not entirely chump change if it retained that value.
And yes, they had a more aggressive sales force pushing the product, who would cold call, play the discount game, etc.
This could have been a good value add to the G-Suite. Alas.
I don't know how many companies were using it, which probably explains why it is being sunsetted. And they're giving it a year before turning it off.
"Greene joined Google in 2015 when the search giant bought her startup, Bebop, for $380 million."
$380mm sounds like a pretty great signing bonus.
Edit: I shouldn't have spoke so soon re: the signing bonus joke. Looks like she ended up donating her $150mm share: "Greene intends to donate $148.62 million of those proceeds 'to a donor advised fund.'"