I think it's too common to make lazy assumptions and not even read the article when it comes to a stereotype (true or not) such as Google's countless EOL'd services.
And personally I feel like Google's endgame isn't to provide the best consumer/enterprise cloud services a la AWS. They're just subsidizing their own endeavors in mass computing with presumably a tidy profit on the side. They can afford to alienate a customer here and there because they don't need a customer here and there. Which is an entirely rational thing to do for a corporation.
People dislike shutdowns because they have invested time and resources in implementing something. Now they have to spend the same if not more time again. This has a cost involved.
How much work is created in our cultures because of the disposable nature of everything. Businesses use efficiency as an excuse of squeeze every last dollar out of workers. Yet on the other end the system is exactly the opposite of efficient.
If Google was shutting down the capability of doing something, like reader, that would be a different issue.
If Google's New API is so easy to switch to, and companies will get value from the switch, then they would do it automatically.
The truth is that the old API probably worked perfectly fine for some companies, who are now forced to spend time and money migrating.
If you were a purchasing manager in the IT department if a midwestern manufacturing (for example) company, wouldn't this kind of service shut down scare you?
AWS seems to support their services forever. That's what Midwestern manufacturing-type companies want. Hopefully Google will learn this, so AWS will have legitimate competitors.