At this point I’m guessing there’s some internal rule that every once in a while forces them to replace products with inferior, incomplete alternatives written from scratch, and only reach feature parity 3-4 years after the shutdown, when everyone gave up and found an alternative.
The rules apparently states that in order to maximize confusion it must be a similar but different name, that users don’t have a guided migration and that the app must be separately downloaded. It’s extremely forbidden to just update the existing app
We have a winner! Employees are rewarded for starting new influential projects, not maintaining or improving existing ones. Thus, there’s intense pressure to propose new products and shut down the old one to beef out the performance reviews.
Hence, Google can almost never take a product from concept to maturity because it hurts the people working on the project to do so.
At this point I’m guessing there’s some internal rule that every once in a while forces them to replace products with inferior, incomplete alternatives written from scratch, and only reach feature parity 3-4 years after the shutdown, when everyone gave up and found an alternative.
The rules apparently states that in order to maximize confusion it must be a similar but different name, that users don’t have a guided migration and that the app must be separately downloaded. It’s extremely forbidden to just update the existing app
Are you a high ranking manager at Google? That seems like insider knowledge 🤔
We have a winner! Employees are rewarded for starting new influential projects, not maintaining or improving existing ones. Thus, there’s intense pressure to propose new products and shut down the old one to beef out the performance reviews.
Hence, Google can almost never take a product from concept to maturity because it hurts the people working on the project to do so.