Google MURDERS Google Code, orders everyone out to GitHub and co Google killing off its own software projects is nothing new, but the Mountain View goliath will soon kill your software projects, too, if you host them on Google Code. The online ad titan said on Thursday that it was shutting down its code collaboration service, which was launched in 2006, effective immediately. The service …
"And at some point, it's possible that their Usenet will go away also."
Luckily usenet is a service that only requires 1 public server to still exist for usenet to still exist. We're slowly getting to that stage but I doubt the final server will be switched off until us 80s & 90s internet pioneer generations are in our coffins. And even then - perhaps someone will keep one going as a virtual museum or suchlike. :o)
Usenet can continue to exist so long as there's code for an nntp server that will compile and someone willing to run it on an internet-facing machine.
But that's not the point: what Google have is as complete a stash of the history of usenet as anyone: they have posts going back to May 1981, which is within ~ a year of the start of usenet. If they decide that is no longer interesting then who else has that, or is that history just gone?
I wonder how long it will be before people realise that relying on a commercial organisation who you don't pay to keep irreplaceable information on your behalf is just a little bit dumb?
"it's just sitting on a server (and some back up) not costing anything."
Er, EH? You've clearly had nothing to do with hosting infrastructure have you. Servers are actually quite expensive to run. Which is why Google are referring to the 'return' here. Their beancounters have probably realised that this part of their business is detracting from their shareholder returns unnecessarily.
The google did NOT buy the Deja News archives to "preserve Usenet history". They were hoping to make their lame Groups more attractive, but they shot that idea in the head by their censorship.
As for the google worrying about spam, that's hilarious. Have you seen their miserable anti-spam webform? Probably not, because they have pretty good reason to hide such a weak-arsed travesty, but let me assure you it is nothing for the spammers to worry about. Or how about the waves of phishing and pwning spam that infest Google's YouTube? Many YEARS of futility there, but my conclusion is that the google people don't have any children or they would be bothered by the YouTube traps targeting children who just think they are trying to watch their favorite cartoon. Or maybe the Android ads are more annoying, with all the fake "You've been infected" notices to con suckers into installing gawd-knows-what malware? Spam in the blogs (as well as disappearing posts)? Lots of other examples, but I can't imagine the Google Code spam problem is high on the list. (These days my #1 EVIL pick is oscillating between the google and Facebook.)
Personal bias disclaimer: I'm one of the newsgroup posters who was shot in the head over on Groups, though I'm still not sure what term of service I might have violated. I've asked a number of times going back about 10 years, and occasionally I receive a robotic reply that my case is still under investigation or appeal or something... I suspect it was for swearing, but hey, that's not the only bad habit I picked up in the service.
"but they shot that idea in the head by their censorship."
The problem isn't google per se - its american companies in general. As a nation the USA is far more prudish than others. Which is ironic really for a whole number of reasons. Upshot is of course you have to work to their rather victorian moral codes if you use an american company for this sort of thing.
My advice would be never to start using any Google service other than basic search for anything important in the first place. I learned years ago the perils of coming to rely on a Google service only to have it yanked out from under you a couple of years later. I'll never rely on them again.
Incidentally, I wonder how long it will be before they yank Google Analytics and a billion webmasters cry out in terror before being suddenly silenced. Notwithstanding that GA is already blocked by a host of privacy tools, that and Google's notorious unreliability, are why our websites use only our own in-house analytics code.
This post has been deleted by its author
>>Google comes up with some nice ideas, implements them partially, turns them into lights-out operations with casual users as tech support, and pulls the plug once there is a critical mass of people dependent on them. Sometimes it feels like Charlie Brown and the football...
Why does that remind me of Microsoft.. Oh wait, because they come up with a nice idea, do a half ass implementation, then usually kill it BEFORE it's actually really useful but AFTER a number of devs are working with it.
This, more than anything else, is why I simply don't rely on Google or Microsoft for anything other than "core" services such as email, office productivity and certain servers that have been around for many years.
"other than basic search"
The reason why that is in there is presumably because there is an assumption that one cannot imagine an internet without "google search". How long before that morphs into something undesirable?
Having used google search for many years now it has become clear in my mind that, unlike other archival material, such as newspapers, things I've searched for, and found in the past, are no longer available in google's "memory". Google cannot be trusted as a transparent service, and it is gradually bending history in an undesirable way. Bring back Alta Vista. Oh? It is, but it's Yahoo.
Time to start looking for/searching with alternatives.
"How long before that morphs into something undesirable?"
It already has. Disregarding any allegations that Google search results are biased, the first [n] search results are usually not the best results, but adverts!
Unfortunately, it'll take some kind of major shake-up to break Google's monopoly over hearts and minds (in common parlance, "Google" has become to "search the internet" what "Hoover" is to "vacuum-clean") - something on an even bigger scale than the MS IE bundling fiasco (there are people out there still using IE).
It depends on the search:
Considering only left column results
1. "CALERIE" (Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy)
a. Google: Best answers, no ads, all of the top 7 results pertinent.
b. DuckDuckGo: Nearly as good as Google, one ad
c. Yahoo: Rather poorer than DuckDuckGo; mixed in results for "calorie" as well as "calerie"
d. Bing: Kind of sucked, mixed links for "calerie" and "calorie"; returned a picture near the top of foods with their calorie content available with a click.
2. "slate chalkboard"
a. Google: Three marked ads on first page, remainder were vendor links except one to a quite decent Slate article on the history of blackboards.
b. DuckDuckGo: One ad, next 17 were vendor links, followed by a "how to clean" link.
c. Yahoo: Four ads on first page, remainder vendor links except for one link to an ehow article.
d. Bing: First page all ads or links to vendors except for a row of images
My best to worst ranking: Google, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Bing. The Slate article was much better than the Ehow one.
I noticed in passing that AdBlockPlus made a difference only for Google and DuckDuckGo.
Google has become to the Internet what Kleenex has become to tissues for a good reason. Based on my monthly (or so) cursory check and a now discontinued month-long trial of DuckDuckGo, I will use Google if I want the best result and don't care about any tracking, and DuckDuckGo if I don't want the query remembered. The other two aren't worth bothering with.
The reason why that is in there is presumably because there is an assumption that one cannot imagine an internet without "google search".
Actually I made that qualification not because I can't imagine an internet without it, but because it's the one service they can't pull - it's their bread and butter. I personally use DuckDuckGo most of the time, but DDG's lack of tracking and search history is both a benefit and a pitfall. Sometimes I want localised results based on my search history and for that I go to Google. But yes, for everything else it's DDG.
"Google has a long track record of abruptly killing off many of its offerings .."
Google would probably drop Android as a service if it was forced to include competitors services on Android if Google ever lost an anti trust case with Android. Google created Android so that it could lock users into its services so would defeat the purpose of Android if it had to include competitors services.
It's been said, wisely, that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. That might be a good thing to keep in mind whenever some corporate entity offers a "free" service. How many such services have unexpectedly pulled the plug on their guests when some vice president wannabe suggests that 1) the emperor is naked, and 2) that cool honey-trap hosting service is a money pit.
Putting aside the part of "cloud" which is really just another name for external hosting, this is another classic example of why it's far too risky to actually RELY on this sort of service for anything serious. At the most I would only consider using something like this as a temporarily convnenient way of sharing things or accessing them remotely from time to time, and keep the "master" copies of content strictly under my own control.
Then again, everyone should know by now that it's pointless moaning when Google shuts down yet another service that isn't making them the money they thought it might possibly do if it reached critical mass.
I stil miss iGoogle : my email inbox, weather radar, real time train info, news headlines from 6 different sources and some other fun stuff all on my home page - the sort of thing that makes loads of individual full screen apps on a tablet still look primitive, and this was 5 years or so ago now.
"I stil miss iGoogle : my email inbox, weather radar, real time train info, news headlines from 6 different sources and some other fun stuff all on my home page - the sort of thing that makes loads of individual full screen apps on a tablet still look primitive, and this was 5 years or so ago now."
Me too! The excuse for killing it was lame.
Now I use third-party igHome and google doesn't get to advertise on it.
Google have completely revised a couple of services I relied on, namely their Calender, Contacts and Maps API. They then replace the "legacy" version of their services with something completely different, incompatible and poorly documented and pull the carpet from under you by dropping the legacy version completely. This has happened to me three times now. You would be correct in thinking I am stupid for trusting Google in the first place.
But I am not going to do it again, and would advise no one else to use their services if they can avoid it. Google just toy with developers, and then kick them in the teeth.
But you do pay for google use? Any significant use of their API services is billed. So even as a paid for utility, they will still pull the rug from under your feet. Surely the lesson to be learned is that Google is not a reliable utility service, as so many people here appear to have been burned because they saw Google as a useful partner - providing a useful service - only then to be royally shafted.
If they're closing Google Code, how long have Picasa, Google Earth or even GMail got left?
Seriously, this is the second service they've yanked out from under me (anyone else still upset about Reader?). Looks like I need to find a new email provider while I still have time...
Google Earth the browser plug-in will die in December this year. Replacement not in sight, except some vague hints at mobile/Android based stuff. Desktop boxes are becoming uncool, it seems.
(Remember that earlier, the sun had been declared to be setting on the stand-alone GE and people were encouraged to switch to the plug-in.)
And recently, the Pro version of the stand-alone GE has been made available for free; never a good sign...
Whether things keep going depends on two factors: whether Google can sell you ads based on them (or charge you directly, perhaps) and whether Google itself survives. Let's assume that they will survive for a reasonable length of time. Then I think the answer to your questions are: gmail is fine, as it has to be an amazingly good stream of really targeted personal information; Google Earth is probably dead already; Picassa I assume will probably go (but I don't know much about it).
However the underlying message here is: if you keep your valuable data on systems which you do not either own yourself, or have contracts with teeth on (ie 'you break the system, you pay me money') then you are a fool.
We are all, of course, fools to some extent.
"Superior" meaning not being blocked in places the US doesn't like.
A project I used to contribute to used to be hosted by Gurgle. Man was I incensed when I received a message from an Iranian guy telling me he couldn't access our source code as Gurgle fucking blocks it there (of course, if it's the Iranians blocking something themselves, that's nasty--if we do the blocking for them, that's the law, eh? Fucking cunts.)
> Hard to see why Google should be held to account for US export controls.
In the same way GitHub and everyone else do, for example? In the same way you can buy Microsoft products in Teheran? In the same way they get on a high horse when told they have to block stuff in China, but drop their trousers in a millisecond if the Americans tell them to do the same?
The question is also whether just a code repository service like Google Code is differentiated enough and has high enough value, or the market will start going up the stack to more integrated solutions like IBM Bluemix and WSO2 App Cloud: http://wso2.com/cloud/app-cloud/ - and thus get not just the code storage but the whole set of tools you need to develop and run the apps: cloud IDE, databases, testing, lifecycle management, app hosting, etc.
All these big companies are like a two year old.
Run up to you every minute, tapping you to get your attention, and shoving the bright shiny interesting thing in your face, because it is just the most exciting thing in the world and you just have to be just as excited as they are. Right now. Now. Muuuuum. Now. Want.
All day.
Then they see a new shiny thing, and the old one just slips from their fingers and drops for the ground as they wobble unsteadily off after a new shiny thing.
Two year olds however, grow up.
Following the classical rules of web usability (honored unfortunately more in the breach than in the observance), for every one of those projects that actually survives being moved, Google should provide a valid link to the new home, for at least five years. As numerous usability experts have noted, it costs almost nothing for a company that reorganizes its website, to provide a simple redirect/link map from old website URLs to new ones. As a search engine, I would think Google knows this better than anyone. So whattay say, Google?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
