This week’s dead Google product is Google Trips

Re:This week’s dead Google product is Google Trips by freewilly1040 on Thursday June 06, 2019 @03:35PM (#20118234)

Defining success as billions of users gets tossed around a lot, but why is that the dogma? If you can make a product smaller than that and have it be profitable, then what's so bad about that? Is it really so hard to manage that apart from Google's gigantic products?

If success is going to be billions of users then yeah, probably do option 1, because nearly nothing is going to get there. Why not have a pipeline to spin these products off or have them survive with lower expectations?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This week’s dead Google product is Google Trips by freetime2 on Thursday June 06, 2019 @04:45PM (#20118971)

Opportunity cost seems like the biggest reason. Why devote resources to a project that is merely profitable when they could be working in something that is hugely profitable instead?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This week’s dead Google product is Google Trips by freewilly1040 on Thursday June 06, 2019 @07:47PM (#20120345)

Reasonable, but then why launch Inbox in the first place? The best email client possible is not going to displace Gmail on a billions of users scale.

It makes a lot more sense from a corporate gamesmanship perspective. I think the incentives of the typical Google employee (widely believed to heavily value launching new stuff) are not in sync with the company or its users.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This week’s dead Google product is Google Trips by erichocean on Friday June 07, 2019 @07:12AM (#20123374)

> why launch Inbox in the first place?

Google didn't launch it, it was a startup that Google acquired for the team, and then killed of Inbox as soon as they could.

[ Parent | on HN ]