Because killing off products has given Google a reputation that stops tens of millions of people using any of the fancy new products that Googlers build and launch. In the long term all the effort Googlers put in to new products is a waste of time.
This should be qualified. Killing off products without an alternative has given that reputation. As long as they provide a viable alternative with effective migration it should not count as "killing off". But I hear you, its the perception that matters too.
I mean in all fairness, For the price gouging I see for storage on phones, I can buy an mp3 player (with a nice DAC), a huge SD card, and then load it on there. That's why I don't store music on my phone.
I used a standalone MP3 player for years in addition to my phone, because I couldn’t find a phone with a decent DAC, but now the existence of Bluetooth DACs means I have less to lug around.
Fair enough, but that still makes you a niche subset. For a vast amount of people in the world, streaming music suffices.
A couple years back storing music was the case in emerging markets too because cell phone internet was expensive and terrible. However, now with 3G+ and cheap plans the number of people who want to store music and listen to it is reducing. Nothing wrong with services adapting IMO.
You on the other hand are right to have your own preferences with storing and listening to music (maybe it is a curated list, old songs not available for streaming) - valid reasons. But then you should find alternatives.
That's a wrong take out of OPs comment. They specifically mentioned that except for a niche subset of users most people don't store MP3s in their phones to listen to. There is nothing wrong for a service to adapt to their new customer base. Why should they staff niche projects because some small % of users (and declining) want to keep using it and provide better alternatives?