https://killedbygoogle.com/ vs https://killedbymozilla.com/
Yet Mozilla has the stigma here?
I suspect that this could be due to “immediacy effect” or “availability heuristic”. Mozilla’s announcement that they are shutting down Pocket and Fakespot was only three weeks ago and was big news. On the other hand, Google shut down so many services that it’s not a rare or memorable issue – unless you were personally impacted by the shutdown.
Mozilla launches fewer projects in general, so the denominator is smaller.
But yes, Google is the worst at this, and they've built up a reputation which has really hurt them! For example, basically no one believed that Stadia would stick around long-term, which (I would argue) became a self-fulfilling prophesy.
There’s “move fast and break things” at Facebook.
And then there’s “launch whatever an SVP dreams up” followed by “kill that old SVP’s thing” at Google.
Perhaps slightly exaggerated. Google product reveals and sunsets have frequently followed executive movements in/around/out of the company. Two big examples that had widespread impact are in the later Google Wallet/Pay changes and some of the later insanity around multiple self-canabalizing IM/chat/conferencing services.
There seems to be no long term vision or strategy at Google, and Pichai is notoriously averse to making decisions of consequence. It’s not surprising that Google is rudderless.
Spot on with Stadia! I use GeForce NOW, now, but it's nowhere near as stable or fast as Stadia. Very sad.
If Google had launched it and told everyone from the start that if they canceled it you'd get your money for games/hardware back I think people would've tried it.