zlacker

>>logic_+(OP)
I don't know. Google is always building lots of stuff and most of it gets shelved before it ever sees the light of day, and 75% of what does get released gets shuttered within 5 years.

The reality is if it isn't ads or ads adjacent, Google will lose interest. And based on their historical revenue I suppose they ought to continue with this model.

>>ryandv+ZL2
I wish they'd open-source what they're shuttering. Would be a win-win as far as I can tell.

>>dmos62+JP2
How is it a win for Google to release something open-source that had potentially cost them lots of money? Even if they don't need and pursue it anymore, why would they just give it to the competition? It's always easily said to "just open-source" it but Google is a business and owes outside software developers nothing.

>>beerne+pd3
How can another company compete with a product Google no longer offers? There is no competition because Google quit competing.

If Google spins up a project and then abandons it, how could they possibly be harmed by someone else offering a comparable product? Google has already accepted a total loss on the product, there's really nothing for them to lose here.

>>mystif+Uv3
What benefit do they see in exchange for the effort in open sourcing things?

It's certainly a win for the rest of us, but how does Google benefit to make it a "win-win", and not just a "win"?

>>delect+mC3
> What benefit do they see in exchange for the effort in open sourcing things?

Next (good) thing they build will probably have greater adoption, due to less fear of "they'll kill this in two years anyway".

>>mgarci+0E3
Lol, sibling commented same thing at the same time.