Google stated that they were into Google+ "for the long haul", in October, 2014.

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/7/11631634/new-google-head-david...

A month earlier I'd suggested 4-5 years, earily on-mark:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190115022452/https://plus.goog...

(I'd made a few other predictions, but they were roughly in line with that. I insist it was a fluke.)

And it turns out that it was very nearly precisely five years later that the service folded.

This on what had been a "bet-the-company" effort in 2011:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-aims-to-subtract-users-...

Killing Google+ was the worst reputation loss in my eyes. I understand that some people didn't like it, but I personally liked it for pictures and tech stuff (I think even Linus used it). Not to mention, it almost brought proper comments to YouTube, one could discuss properly. So close.

It was the only true competitor to FB, it would've needed to steal more features from Facebook but with G+'s touch, but nothing happened for years, they lost the vision to topple FB.

Killing it in the way they did was painfully bad. No way I'll rely further on Google services, or recommend them to anyone.

A major security vulnerability in Google + was the nail on the coffin, If I remember correctly. May be they worried G+ was not worth sued over by EU.

That was the stated reason.

Given the dissembling surrounding G+ from the very beginning, credibility of that rationale is ... low.

s/earily/eerily/

Google can't save their reputation with a marketing message. The only thing that would rebuild it is to not shut down any services for the couple of decades. They're not going to do that though, so Google is now effectively a 'short-term' products company as far as anything new goes.

For consumers that's fine. They understand the situation and approach Google products with that knowledge. Stadia is a good example.

The people who should be most wary of this policy are Googlers who are looking for a team to join.

I read this in an opinion piece that promotions and bonuses at Google are issued for launching things - products, face lifts, new features - not necessarily maintaining applications (maybe with the exception of search and advertising).

So taking that lens it's easy to see why so many new products are launched but then fall away and are killed, because the people involved can get their money and then move on to do other things. Also explains the constant user hostile redesigns of existing products.

To fix the reputation in this regard the internal reward structures would need to be changed so that building new things is the only way to get ahead.

"The people who should be most wary of this policy are Googlers who are looking for a team to join."

Only building new shiny things from scratch and never having to support them? Doesn't sound like a bad deal.

At the start of my career I was all about the tech, and I would probably have agreed with you. But now, with around 23 years of building web things behind me, I've realised that what keeps me interested is the fact that tens of millions of people have found what I've contributed to useful and interesting. Without that I would have given up and got bored.

Most people (certainly everyone I've ever worked with) need to have positive external input and feedback on the work they do to drive them forward, and if you're not getting that and the feedback is repeatedly "Meh, it'll just be killed in a few years" it would eventually start to impact your confidence and ability to do good work.

Given that it's Google, for Stadia they have the financial means to reimburse their customers (and buy out the game developers / publishers) if they want to shut it down - and it's heading that way fast.