Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Fair point, but why should anyone bother investing time and effort into using the thing if it's just an experiment?

Certainly not going to shift my team or multiple teams onto it if I can't trust it's going to be there tomorrow.



Google: Hey users, please commit your teams & projects to our new shiny product!

Users: Hey Google, please commit to supporting your new shiny product for the long-haul!

Stalemate. Google did this to themselves.


If you're starting a new team today, or a hobby project, or you have very little movement cost and low risk choosing a new service, then maybe you read this page, see a thing that this solves that has frustrated you about a previous tool, and you go for it. That's why a customer might choose it.

That's winning an early customer, that's proving product/market fit, that's progress. That's why Google would do this.

The marketing material pitches it as a much bigger deal, but then would anyone sign up if it didn't? There's a minimum quality bar that many people expect before signing up, and from a known entity like Google that's likely a much higher bar.

I almost wonder if they're making problems for themselves by naming it under the Google brand? Being completely separate they'd be able to fail faster, ship something lower quality that still proved product/market fit, etc. Area 120 seems to be their attempt to create this space, but I'm undecided on how well I think it will work.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: