I remember reading somewhere that employees are heavily incentivized to create new things. Invent something, develop something, just get something NEW out, but there are no incentives to support existing projects. Once a feature or product is complete and released, nobody wants to stay on the team to support it, and there’s no perceived value in even continuing to produce it, much less evolve it.
That’s why Google is always churning out new stuff, and then letting it languish and die. There’s no internal money for support, only invention.
That sounds like south Asian mentality, I mean I’m not saying it’s because of south Asians, but just that it’s a very similar thought process, most observable when it comes to buying new houses, people in India/pakistan where people won’t mind paying large sums of money upfront for fancy condominiums, but will not pay high maintenance fees to keep the fancy facilities going.
Its not a killing, its a rebranding. Its just being called a killed device because its Google.
Its like claiming Apple is killing iPhones every few years.
“Apple killing iPhone S” in 2018.
“Apple killing iPhone C” in 2014, another for the Apple graveyard.
“Apple killing iPhone Plus” in 2018, another for the Apple graveyard.
“Apple killing the iPhone SE” in 2023, another for the Apple graveyard.
“Apple killing iPhone Mini” in 2022, another for the Apple graveyard.
This doesn’t even include other devices like the G models, Unibodies, and Retina iMac models. Just look at that Apple graveyard growing and so quickly…
This could also be claimed on things from most other large, older tech companies. But the reality is, a rebranding is not a killing of the device. This is just clickbait.
They really do kill something off every other week, don’t they?
I remember reading somewhere that employees are heavily incentivized to create new things. Invent something, develop something, just get something NEW out, but there are no incentives to support existing projects. Once a feature or product is complete and released, nobody wants to stay on the team to support it, and there’s no perceived value in even continuing to produce it, much less evolve it.
That’s why Google is always churning out new stuff, and then letting it languish and die. There’s no internal money for support, only invention.
They really need to just lease these innovations out to new teams that’ll maintain them, or at least just open source it all.
They’d probably make a killing if they kept just making stuff then selling the infrastructure to other companies once they’re bored.
Sounds like American infrastructure…
That sounds like south Asian mentality, I mean I’m not saying it’s because of south Asians, but just that it’s a very similar thought process, most observable when it comes to buying new houses, people in India/pakistan where people won’t mind paying large sums of money upfront for fancy condominiums, but will not pay high maintenance fees to keep the fancy facilities going.
“Former Google employee reveals dark secrets, ‘raising of a new god’ fed by scrapped projects”
Its not a killing, its a rebranding. Its just being called a killed device because its Google.
Its like claiming Apple is killing iPhones every few years.
“Apple killing iPhone S” in 2018.
“Apple killing iPhone C” in 2014, another for the Apple graveyard.
“Apple killing iPhone Plus” in 2018, another for the Apple graveyard.
“Apple killing the iPhone SE” in 2023, another for the Apple graveyard.
“Apple killing iPhone Mini” in 2022, another for the Apple graveyard.
This doesn’t even include other devices like the G models, Unibodies, and Retina iMac models. Just look at that Apple graveyard growing and so quickly…
This could also be claimed on things from most other large, older tech companies. But the reality is, a rebranding is not a killing of the device. This is just clickbait.
…These are all the same line of phones.
And these are the same line of devices in the article, just with different names. Exactly the same thing, only difference is who the makers are.