Actually, Google Code was never trying to win.
It was simply trying to prevent SF from becoming a shitty monoculture that hurt everyone, which it was when Google Code launched. Google was 100% consistent on this from the day it launched to the day it folded. It was not trying to make money, or whatever
I was there, working on it, when it was 4 of us :)
So to write all these funny things about taste or what not, is totally besides the point.
We folded it up because we achieved the goal we sought at the time, and didn't see a reason to continue.
People could get a good experience with the competition that now existed, and we would have just ended up cannibalizing the market.
So we chose to exit, and worked with Github/bitbucket/others to provide migration tools.
All of this would have been easy to find out simply by asking, but it appears nobody bothers to actually ask other people things anymore, and I guess that doesn't make as good a story as "we totally destroyed them because they had no taste, so they up and folded".
Incidentally, this is why I don't use any Google products other than search. It's never clear to me which ones are real products that are trying to win and make money, and which ones are just fun side projects that a multibillion dollar corporation is doing out of the goodness of their hearts, but could get shut down at any time.
Every project by Google I was willing to jump platforms for, they killed. So outside of email, maps, and search, sometimes voice, they have nothing left that is worth investing time into. It will disappear within a couple years or less.
Voice? Could easily fold and be sold to Sprint. I’m honestly surprised (and thankful) it’s been working for 15+ years. Completely out of Google character. I hope they forgot about it running on a server under someone’s desk in the basement just below a red stapler.
Presumably because it's still providing value. It was originally about mass collecting voice data so they could train their speech-to-text capabilities with various dialects.
Dialects are always in flux and there are plenty of languages out there they haven't conquered, so ... I'd guess they're just leaving it running to detect new speech or languages or dialets or ... personal data gathering or... ?
Youtube has significantly better voice data
The audio quality of Youtube videos is not representative of the audio quality of someone speaking into their phone.
The speech patterns also differ heavily, with Youtubers (usually) talking in a presentative manner and speaking very clearly.
I think the way people talk in private phone calls, as well as the call audio quality, are much more similar to that of someone speaking to an assistant.
Man, they collected a lot of prank calls from my younger-self lol.
Does Sprint even exist anymore
no, Sprint was folded into T-mobile.
The only reason that merger was even allowed to happen was because it was extremely clear that Sprint would not have been a going concern into the next year if it would stay independent.
And as a result, T-Mobile has gotten worse, because now they don't have to try as hard to compete with AT&T and Verizon.
I feel like Sprint failing may have been better for the market; I expect more Sprint customers would have switched to AT&T or Verizon than to T-Mobile, and T-Mobile would still have to fight for customers.
Instead, T-Mo has jacked up prices just like everyone else, reduced nice perks, and their "uncarrier" movement is but a memory.
Same here. I'm equal parts glad and puzzled that it hasn't been killed. I genuinely don't know what I would replace it with.
I used it since a few years before Google bought GrandCentral in '07. A couple of years ago I moved to voip.ms as part of my de-googling and am happy with it. There are oodles of such providers.
Oodles of providers that give you a permanent US number for free?
I've been burned by Google too many times, but I'm definitely thankful for them continuing to maintain Voice, and even actively improving it over the last few years. I've been using it as my primary phone number since the GrandCentral days, so it'd be a pretty big pain to have the rug pulled out from under me at this point.
It would also be pretty shortsighted from a business perspective, IMO. Voice could still be extended to compete with iMessage and WhatsApp, like they sort of tried to do back when they were going to merge it with Hangouts.
God please no more messaging apps from Google for the love of god.
lol, I'm certainly not advocating for that, but I'd rather they release 100 new messaging apps than kill Google Voice.
I wouldn't worry about voice. They offer it as a paid feature of GSuite to business customers. It's not going anywhere.
They're now calling it "Google Workspace" for the moment.
Like Google Domains?
https://support.google.com/domains/answer/6069226
I think there is/are some executives at Google/Alphabet that utilize GV so much that they couldn't kill it if they wanted to. I used to have a voip device that worked with my GV number, and Google extended the life of the API used several years, I since stopped using that device and the service had still been working for it.
I do miss when GV and SMS were integrated with Hangouts though... was imo a much better experience than you get today with all the broken out apps.
Hush now, don't remind them of it!! ;P
In all seriousness, though: if I were a user of Google Voice, I'd be seriously concerned that they would shut it down in a way that caused me to lose access to my phone number (even if only indirectly, as happened recently with their divesture of Google Domains or whatever their registrar was called)... you are much braver than I ;P.
Sprint is T-Mobile now
Fiber is also still running, somehow. I don’t think they’re expanding much if at all but I’m shocked it hasn’t been sold off.
Frankly, I’m just as shocked they didn’t go full throttle with it either, because talk about a data selling gold mine with all that traffic
While I’m on that subject, it could have been a real opportunity for them to push fiber + YouTube TV as a package. Google isn’t good at making original content but at some point they have made a software + services play that makes such a package more palatable and user friendly, imagine subscribing to a YouTube channel and it becomes a channel as part of the TV app for instance. A lot of people watch channels like this as it is.
They've been expanding again, and are now offering 8gbps in my area. I've been very happy with it, and I'm still only paying $70/month.
That’s absolutely amazing. Besides hosting at home, do you feel any difference vs say a 1gbps line? Surely most servers won’t saturate this when downloading or browsing?
Our ISP (Sonic) offers 10Gb uncapped for $50/mo.
I don't feel any difference over our previous 1G service, other than it never lags, even if multiple kids are streaming video and I have a backup running. The biggest difference is that it's half the price of the 1G service that ran over AT&T's fiber.
I really wish Sonic would expand out to West Marin. My only options are comcast and starlink.
Ouch. I was ecstatic when they started offering service in my neighborhood in Alameda.
Google literally abandoned Fiber in at least one city and left roads in disrepair via “shallow trenching”
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...
Google Fiber is actually working on expanding to where I live, I keep getting ads on Youtube for it.
IIRC, Google doesn't sell user data. But it's plenty valuable to them all locked up.
Search?
DuckDuckGo is great for most purposes.
The best product Google has is Maps. That's about it.
DuckDuckGo is literally Bing but with location-based ads added to the bottom of your search results.
When did that change? I haven’t tested it in a while, but in the past DuckDuckGo indexed some stuff that wasn’t on Bing.
I’ve been using Google and Duck on different kinds of searches these days, because neither is universally better but I might try Bing again.
Edit: NM, Bings UI is still annoying. It slides stuff in from the side when you scroll down.
It didn’t. The person you’re replying to is either exaggerating or uninformed.
Maybe give Ecosia a try. The interface is decent and I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the results.
You're right, it didn't change. It was always just a thin wrapper around Bing.
Are we just going to pretend that Chrome and Android don't exist just like that, or do I have a different definition of "has"?
Unrelated to the thread - do you use any email providers with a custom domain? If so, would you suggest them? Who are they?
Fastmail has been solid for the last several years. I would recommend it.
Fastmail is just about perfect. Feels like email 30 years ago but with a spam filter.
Also a happy fastmail paying customer. The aliases are really good.
Apple hosts custom domains at no extra charge if you have iCloud+. I've used it for a couple years now to host my family's domain and a couple of hobby ones for myself.
I would probably still be on Apple mail and use its generated email aliases except it went through a stage of not dealing with various back bounce spam so I switched to fastmail and have had no issues.
Either now is probably a good choice.
i really, really like purelymail. great pricing, good customer service, reliability, and documentation.
other popular options are fastmail, migadu, and mxroute.
I agree with a lot of the other options, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention one that isn't always obvious.
With all the Big Corp asterisks, Microsoft Business Basic can be a pretty great deal at 6 USD/month. Solid reliability, aliases, (too many) config options, 1TB of OneDrive storage, cloud MS apps, etc.
uberspace because of SSH access
Zoho Mail. Cheapest, no nonsense, very straightforward UI, all the settings you'd ever wish for, support replies quickly even on the cheapest tier.
https://migadu.com/
I've used Fast Mail, liked it a lot, but I think at the time the pricing wasn't the best.
I then used some other platform that was quite "old school" that is recommended here. The Mail Admin was very opinionated which lead to some mail being blocked. That wasn't cool.
I'm now with Migadu on the cheapest plan and it's been fine. Had a few outages here and there, but otherwise solid.
I'd happily rec Fastmail or Migadu.
You can also use gmail with a custom domain. Helps with not being locked in to Google, doesn't of course help in them selling your data.
E.g. https://juri.dev/notes/email-routing-gmail-cloudflare/
Proton mail
If you need something cheap and are willing to deal with a tiny company, have a look at <https://purelymail.com>. I've been happy with them for two years, never had any problems with delivery, and they support infinite domains/aliases, and custom Sieve rules. But do not use it if you need 99.999999% SLAs or anything like that, because again -- it's a one-man show.
Fastmail
That's the big question mark I have for Flutter. Looks like a pretty nice platform from the outside, but I cannot see Google NOT killing it
Googler, opinions are my own.
You have to look at what teams at Google are using Flutter. Any dev tool Google officially releases tends to be funded by some product that actually likes/uses it.
Current list from https://flutter.dev/showcase: GPay, Earth, Ads (this is a big one), and others.
There are a lot of teams using it, which is why it's still getting so much support. If you see Google apps moving away from it, then it's time to start looking for an alternative.
It's also why AngularDart still exists and is getting updated. There are large projects that use it, so they will keep supporting it.
How is Ads using Flutter? It likely doesn't, or uses it for some largely irrelevant things like mobile SDK integrations
Ads is the reason Dart is still around, they saved the team after the project folded, after migrating from GWT to AngularDart, they weren't into doing yet another rewrite.
Wasn't it Analytics which had Dart? But I do remember something about Ads saving it.
It all depends on politics within the company. For example: youtube was hastily rewritten using alpha/beta versions of Polymer targeting Custom Elements v0. The moment they did that v0 was deprecated.
So within next 4 years they rewrote Youtube again with Polymer version targeting Custom Elements v1. The moment they did that, Polymer was deprecated and replaced with lit.
Even though they haven't rewritten Youtube, they've now spent time integrating Wiz, an internal Google framework (that also got merged with Angular).
The costs of rewrites don't matter at Google as much as promotions.
I think Ads has a mobile app for people who run them?
And none of Google’s flagship cross platform apps use Flutter.
The fact Pay and Ads both use, along with Youtube Create even, is a pretty good sign because if they have a non-trivial codebase of flutter/dart app(s) then killing it would impact all those teams who are doing important work. I've debated trying flutter/dart a few times and this makes me feel more willing to try it.
I assumed Flutter is open source; if they fix kill it off, is there a reason to not to expect the community to fork and maintain it? Presumably they'd have to rebrand it without Google giving permission for the name, but that alone doesn't seem like enough to stop it from existing in some form.
The base ROI of Flutter to Google isn't all that clear because it's relatively complex to maintain. Worse, it requires maintaining Dart, which appears to be a dead-end language in terms of adoption.
If Flutter and Dart were donated to the community, they would most likely slowly die because no one outside of Google gets enough benefit from them to justify maintaining an entire programming language.
It's worse. Flutter actually works against google's own interests. Webpages that render text in a canvas are not as easily indexable as webpages that emit html. It's funny too because the same is true for sites made with flutter. They aren't SEO friendly
You could suggest using AI to OCR the canvas but even that would be subpar because most sites that use HTML provide multiple screens worth of info but sites that render to a canvas render only what's visible. The rest of the data is internal. You'd not only need the AI to successfully OCR the text, you'd need it to interact with the page get it to render what's not currently displayed.
Accessibility interfaces are ideal for this situation, allowing an LLM to interact with a GUI strictly through text. Unfortunately, they're often an afterthought in implementations.
Same can be said from GWT.
I think you should ask the opposite question instead, and this goes for any project that is corporate "owned"/sponsored like Flutter: why should we expect the community to maintain it if the company abandons it?
Are there any non-Googlers with commit access to the project? Do non-Googlers comprise a decent percentage of contributions? If not, the bar goes up quite a bit for a fork, or for a "peaceful handoff" of the existing project.
Google Maps isn't going anywhere. I'd even argue that it's more important than search; it's far more difficult to switch to a competitor.
GMail isn't going anywhere either.
YouTube is a bit less clear: it doesn't really have any competitors, and is extremely popular and widespread, but it surely costs a fortune to keep running.
It'd be interesting to see the financials on these different business units to see which are the healthiest and which aren't.
How is it difficult to switch to a maps competitor? Really depends on how much you use it, but most of my use involved looking up a location, then getting directions to it. There's no cost to switching, expect perhaps setting up my commonly used addresses, which are basically in my contacts anyway. I'm sure that there are cases that are harder to switch, but I'd guess that they don't apply to the majority of people.
Gmail, on the other hand, like any email service, is much harder to switch. Until we get mandated email address portability, like was done with phone numbers some years back.
Right, and that's where most of Google Maps' value is: it's really a business directory combined with a navigation system. I'm not going to look up an address for some place, I want to just search for "<business name> near me" and find all the nearby locations and pick one and go there. Even better, Google Maps has reviews built-in so you can see if people hate a certain place.
If you think the majority of people keep business names and addresses in a contacts list, you're really out of touch.
Also, GMaps has features competing systems usually don't, depending on locality. Here in Tokyo, it's tied into the public transportation system so it'll tell you which train lines to ride, which platform to use, which car to ride in, which station exit to use, when a train is delayed, etc. It'll even tell you exactly how much each option costs, since different train lines have different costs. Then, inside many buildings, it'll show you level-by-level what business is on what floor.
So you are not aware that public transport companies in general have a public API for that data, and that openstreetmap exists?
"In general" is quite a stretch.
I am aware of plenty public transports in European countries that you better print out those PDFs, from their website, assuming they have them in first place.
This is not at all what they were saying, and I'm not sure where you got that. What they're saying is that Google doesn't have a monopoly on business location data, so searching for a business on a competitor (especially a large one like Apple, but mostly even OSM) does just work.
Those are all great features, but they are not features which lock you into the platform. If bing or Apple maps had the same utility I could switch to them at the drop of a hat.
It is the only map application that allow you to check public transport (bus/metro/tram) with changes other than (if it exists) a local app for the city.
As far as I know, there is no other map application that does that.
Transit is generally pretty awesome.
https://transitapp.com/
Exactly. Here in Tokyo, there is a local app that's tied into public transit just like GMaps, but all it does is tell you how to get from Station X to Station Y. If that's all you want to know, it works quite well. But most people want to know more than that: where is Business A, and what's the fastest/cheapest way to get there from my current location? Which station exit should I use? And oh yeah, how are the reviews on it? And can I see the menu, and place a reservation too?
Apple Maps does this
There was a brief moment when it looked like Twitch would kill YouTube; then, much like Instagram responding to SnapChat, they took the best parts of it and added them to itself. I'd be amazed if YouTube wasn't profitable now with the combination of more ads, more subscription/superchat options and the pandemic-era boom in streaming.
As for real products, at Google's current size it has become near impossible to launch new ones worth their time.
Google currently has a quarterly revenue of $70-80B.
Imagine an internal team launches a new product to collect $100M in quarterly revenue. An earth-shattering success for any entrepreneur.
For Google...it doesn't even move the needle. Does nothing for stock, it's not strategic, and may become a liability later on.
You would need to launch a multi-billion new sub business for it to be of any interest to Google, which is impossibly hard.
This is why they should go full conglomerate and spin off companies all the time.
Otherwise, with those expectations, it's impossible to build something good and impactful.
What would be the benefit of doing it spun-off vs. in-house when it's still owned by the same company and making the same amount of money?
Less red tape, more freedom to operate.
If done inside a conglomerate, it can be the best of both worlds. Access to Google tech and funding, but free from rigid corporate hierarchies, at least at the beginning.
Spinning it off limits the downside/risk to the parent company. Basket of options worth more than an option on a basket and all that.
I really thought this was what the plan would be when Alphabet was formed.
Google X/X Development LLC is the Google incubator for possible spin-offs as far as I can tell.
... which is the reason why many large corporations acquire products: only once they are big enough, they are relevant.
Issue for Google: They have to be carful for Anti-Trust not blocking the acquisition for some reason.
Back then it felt like it was actually just possible that they just were that cool. Noughties Google was really something compared to the staid, implacable incumbents. 15GB (with a G!) of email storage that would grow forever! Google Earth! YouTube! Live long enough to see yourself become the villain indeed.
Google's leadership made their intentions clear with the purchase of the much reviled DoubleClick in 2007. They didn't become villains; it was always all about the money, just like everyone else.
I think at least at first it was genuinely not villainous. The highly technical founders, I think, did mean it with "Don't Be Evil". PageRank wasn't designed from the start to be a universal panopticon. After all, the global crash hadn't happened, rates weren't zero yet, no one had smartphones, social media wasn't a word, mobile meant J2EE and Symbian, and the now-familiar all-pervasive Silicon Valley financialisation MBA cancer was yet to come. That said, the realisation that "all the data" wasn't just about search index data and book scans did clearly hit for them (or, if that was the plan since 1998, surface) by the mid 00s.
DoubleClick was the year after Google Code. They had a good few years of being considered cool and, well, Not Evil. Google Earth was 2001, Gmail, Scholar and Books was 2004, Reader and Gtalk (RIP x 2) 2005, Patents in 2006 and dropping 1.65 billion plus (which sounds trivial now that everyone and their mum's are worth billions for whatever dog-walking app, but not then) on YouTube that year, even though it was only a year old. Mad times, you could barely sign up for a beta before another one landed. The search engine itself was of course revolutionary and peerless. And you could use it on your WAP phone until something called the "iPhone" happened.
For those of us who were young and, yes, naive, and who weren't paying attention in the first dot com crash in those newspapers adults read while we played (8 year olds in the 90s rarely using IRC to get the lowdown on Silicon Valley), it seemed like it was possibly a new age. "Going public" in 2004 wasn't yet another obvious "oh here we go again" moments, because they were among the first in the generation, with the pervious generation mostly fizzling before pervasive internet access (Amazon made it, but it was a slower burn).
Chrome and Android was 2008, and I remember first hearing around then the phrase "Google Mothership". Though I never stopped using Firefox (and Opera, I don't remember when I switched to Firefox), Chrome was undeniably a technical coup at the time. Being cool and shiny and actually good at being a browser, while kicking that evil Microsoft in the teeth helped too. It took time to burn though that goodwill. Even today, very many otherwise FOSSy people won't move from Chrome.
This made me nostalgic for the low bandwidth, no javascript, almost all text gmail interface. It felt so snappy.
It was actually fun to go poke around and see what new sites they were cooking up. I'd forgotten.
Business strategy is more than just launch product, make money. Companies operate in a dynamic space, and if you play any game (basketball, chess ..) you know that moving forward at all cost is not how you play the game. Sometimes you side-step, sometimes you take a step back, sometimes you sacrifice your piece.
If you expect you team to just go-go-go, you might something in the short term but you'll fail miserably in long-term.
That is totally fine, but Google is a case where they go into new business units and fairly often kill those units quite soon.
It's not like they're doing cereals and now they're doing other cereals, so you can fall back to their previous cereals. You always have to find a new supplier, or then just start buying bread.
Yeah, there are so many examples. It's one of the reasons I was unwilling to jump on board Google Stadia... I kept thinking "let's wait and see how it does". Particularly since you had to buy non-transferable game licenses.
And, of course, they shut it down. At this point, Google is going to have to be in a space for at least 5 years and clearly be highly successful before I would even think about using them.
And I worked at AWS Professional Services and sat in on sales calls all of time where one of our talking points was “a company couldn’t trust Google to not to abandon a service they were going to be dependent on”.
Was that partially FUD? Probably. But there were plenty of services sales could point to.
a simple heuristic: does it make Google a boatload of money? if yes, it's safe
Anything besides ads, GCP, and Apps in that bucket?
I won't disagree with you, but can you put ads in the product, and have them be front and center? That also counts as ads.
I'm still dealing with the fallout of the domains selloff.
I don't even use search anymore. Kagi schools it
Eh, when it happened the world was ready. It felt like a different internet back then, and it was pretty great for a company to say that everyone was already on github anyways, so let's all go there (Microsoft followed almost the exact same timeline with Codeplex, and really who cares).
More Google style would be shortly after shutting down Google Code starting up a new code hosting project, migrating several times to always slightly incompatible frontends requiring developer changes, shutting down the project, and shortly afterwards starting up a new code hosting project...
mentioning the sunset of a google products, in general, in any thread about some specific google product, is a kind of godwin's law.
because of ordering by vote, we can't see how quickly it happened in this case. in godwin's law the likelihood increases by length of discussion, implying a slow/linear kind of probability, but for google product sunset i would argue that the likelihood ramps up very aggressively from the start.
i hereby dub this `jiveturkey's law`.
like godwin's law, the subthread becomes a distraction. unlike godwin's law, the sunset distraction is always a legitimate point. it's just that it has become tired.
I'm not sure what "SF" means in this context. San Francisco? I can't figure out what you want to say Google Code was for exactly. If Google launches a major project, I find it hard to believe that it's just for fun.
It’s short for Source Forge which is still around technically but a shadow of its former self.
It was early example of the "enshittification" phenomenon. It was a particular bad example of advertising and other spammy distractions because sites for developers have the lowest CPM of anything except maybe anime fan sites.
It is super hard to break through a two-sided market but it is possible when a competitor has given up entirely on competition, which might have happened in the SourceForge case because the money situation was so dire they couldn't afford to invest in it.
A small SourceForge retrospective for those not around at the time:
This post's overview of contributing to Open Source is largely correct. You'd get the source tarball for a project, make some changes, and then e-mail the author/maintainer witch a patch. Despite the post's claim Open Source existed long before 1998.
Rarely did Internet randos have any access to a project's VCS. A lot of "projects" (really just a program written by a single person) didn't even have meaningful VCS, running CVS or RVS were skills unto themselves. There was also the issue that a lot of Open Source was written by students and hosted on school servers or an old Linux box in a dorm.
SourceForge came along riding the first Internet bubble. They let a lot of small FOSS projects go legit by giving them a project homepage without a .edu domain or tilde in it. They also got a managed VCS (CVS at first then Subversion later) and contact e-Mail addresses, forums, and other bits that made the lives of Linux distro and BSD ports maintainers much easier. They also had a number of mirror sites which enabled a level of high availability most projects could never have had previously.
Then SourceForge's enshitification began as bubble money ran out. The free tier of features was decreased and then they started bundling AdWare into Windows installers. SourceForge would literally repackage a Windows installer to install the FOSS application and some bullshit AdWare, IIRC a browser toolbar was a major one.
As the officially upstream source for FOSS projects bundled for package managers the AdWare wasn't much of a problem. But SourceForge was the distribution channel for a significant amount of Windows FOSS apps like VLC, MirandaIM, and a bunch of P2P apps which were impacted by the AdWare bundling at various points.
A GitHub founder patting themselves on the back for the success of GitHub is sort of funny because GitHub followed a similar track to SourceForge but got bought by Microsoft instead of a company coasting on VC money. I can easily imagine a world where an independent GitHub enshittified had they not been bought by a money fountain.
Can you provide an example?
GitHub offered a better experience than the existing offerings. They then scaled massively to the point where it was expensive to run without a lot of good options for monetization. Thankfully for GitHub they got bought by Microsoft and not say Verizon or GameStop (which owns the corpse of SourceForge for unfathomable reasons).
GitHub could have easily enshittified in an effort to make money had they not been bought by someone with deep pockets.
I thought GameStop sold SourceForge off over a decade ago and that it has changed hands a couple times since.
It did not. Free software did. The term "open source" was coined by Christine Peterson at a meeting in January of 1998, as Netscape was contemplating releasing their source code as free software. The Open Source Initiative was founded a month later, and forked the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written by one of the OSI founders, Bruce Perens. This was a deliberate marketing exercise, both to avoid the unfortunate "as in beer" connotations of free software, and to distance the concept from the FSF and Richard Stallman.
All of this is well documented.
Does something only exist once it is named? Free software is also open source software, even if that name was only coined later on.
GitHub was not on the same track as SourceForge, and I would hazard they were in a completely different world than then one SourceForge developed in. For instance, GitHub is far less likely to host an executable for any software, which is where you're going to get bundled installers with AdWare or malware. I know that GitHub allows installers to be uploaded, but if we're going to compare the time period before Microsoft purchased GitHub, I really don't think this is fair. I understand the history of not trusting Microsoft, and even as someone who is deeply involved in using GitHub and Microsoft software and features, can understand a level of distrust. Everything you said about SourceForge is correct, so I don't mean to put down your entire comment here.
I believe GitHub's underlying use of the Git SCM, as well as the interface that allowed web users to look at "pull requests" as a concept was the real value in GitHub, far before hosting binaries or attracting the attention of Microsoft. The attraction to Microsoft was the ability to pull in the growing network of git users, the popularity of GitHub to a growing number of developers, and the ability to integrate the service into their developer offerings (this was the key that would have made the other two "positives" worthless to them).
I think any tool or technology you should have an "out", in case another corporation/company takes over and doesn't align with your values. Being stuck on SourceForge, Google Code, GitHub, Bitbucket, etc. is a recipe to lock yourself into being put down to pasture because you couldn't adapt and realize that there is a huge world out there, and tools and tech come and go. Always have something as an alternative for whatever you do, because things change too quickly, plus you get another point of view with solving problems (if that's your thing, and you aren't just developing for the money, which is fine if you can admit it to yourself). The fact that you are able to dive back into time with SourceForge tells me you are one of those people that have been into technology since pre-dot com bust, but probably got burned by Microsoft in some form. I'm not defending Microsoft for their past practices, only coming at this from what they have done with GitHub to this point. Hopefully I'm not wrong, but I do have a plan in place in case I am, and I think that's the most important thing in software.
I don't think GitHub's situation is completely analogous to SourceForge. You're right that GitHub doesn't have a huge moat by virtue of the way git works. I think Microsoft realizes that, no one necessarily loves GitHub so much they'd not jump ship if GitHub became too user hostile.
To be clear I'm not trying to be down on GitHub here. They made a good product and a very good alternative to SourceForge. I think they just got lucky getting bought by Microsoft when they did. By 2018 I think they'd gotten to the point where their costs would have required to start chasing revenue.
I agree w/ the analysis in the article and yours. “Good taste” for them must have been influenced by “let’s not be SourceForge”.
Part of the enshittification story is the tragedy of the non-profitable site that has a large user base. Here is a recent example
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41463734
Potentially investments in a site could have huge leverage because of the existing user base.
I (and most of my team) lost our jobs at one of the most well-loved open accessing publishing sites in the world because of a complex chain of events that was rooted in the site not having a sustainable funding source despite the fact that it was fantastically cheap to run if you divided the budget by the number of daily users. Fortunately they figured it all out and the site is still here and if you work in physics, math or cs you probably used it today.
Still it was painful to see “new shiny” projects that had 4x the funding but 1% the user count at most, or to estimate we could save users $500M a year with a $500k budget.
Thus you can overthrow SourceForge but cannot overthrow something profitable and terrible such as Facebook, Match.com or the “blob” of review sites that dominate Google, see
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41488857
Didn’t they also start packaging malware into binary downloads?
Was it actual malware? I thought it was just automatically checked software like the Ask.com toolbar for Internet Explorer, along with the Oracle.com JAVA JRE. Maybe I was just more careful than most, but I have been using FileZilla for many years, and never had any of these issues as long as I paid attention to the installer and what was included.
You got a chuckle out of me with such a specific reference that I know I got auto-installed too. I don't know, personally, but I do recall reading accounts of malware from them from around that era.
I suppose I would call what I saw "Grayware" [1], which is debatably not malware (but debatably is, too). It was enough of a smell for me to stop using their site, though. I'd actually just forego software I was seeking out from them instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware#Grayware
I definitely don't deny that what they did was definitely not on the "up and up", for sure. Dark patterns, and I haven't heard the term "grayware" before, but it definitely fits! I was only lucky because I actually watch installers, and tend to mess with install locations, strictly when it comes to Windows software. I would prefer to be on a Linux-distro for work, but it's honestly just easier for me to stick with Windows because I have to help so many other people, and I know I would eventually end up losing the (current) knowledge of what can go wrong with Windows. Over time, I would be out of touch.
I only learned the term grayware from this thread. I wasn't sure precisely what did and didn't qualify as malware, so I checked Wikipedia and found it there.
As for the Windows fear, I understand that. That was me 10+ years ago, and I _am_ less knowledgable at helping people with Windows these days. I can still figure some things out by searching, and "I couldn't figure it out after 5-10 minutes" has turned out to be an acceptable answer too sometimes :)
By then they were already desperate from the previous enshittification.
Yep.
They pirate or already subscribe to Crunchroll. Many sites are nowhere near brand safe (one reason Danbooru is as good as it is that is not even brand safe for porn ads.) Some of them buy figurines, but they already know where to get them. Good smile would rather invest in 4chan than buy ads on western anime sites. I have no idea what it is like in Japan.
I am skeptical of claims that “advertisers want to target young people because they have a lifetime of consumption ahead of them”. Maybe that is true of Proctor and Gamble (who expect to still be selling Dawn and Tide 50 years from now) but few advertisers are thinking ahead more than one quarter, if that —- particularly in the internet age where an ad click can be tracked to a transaction.
People today will say all the ads on TV target oldsters because only oldsters watch TV but circa 2000 there was no streaming and watching TV made me think “I want to die before I get old” because there were so many ads for drugs and embarrassing health conditions and personal injury lawyers and relatively little for things you would spend your own money on because not a lot of people in the audience have money to spend particularly after paying the cable bill.
"shadow of its former self"
Was there ever a point in time where it wasn't something that basically sucked? For some reason there are still some widely used ham radio packages that are hosted on sourceforge and it annoys me greatly. When you click the big green "Download" for the project you get.... .... a dll file. Why? Because the actual release artifact is some other zip file and for some reason it doesn't deserve the "Big Green Download" button.
SF has always been this bad. Their core data model just doesn't jive with how people actually interact with open source projects.
... and for that matter didn't they stir up some controversy a long while ago for tampering with project artifacts and adding extra "stuff" in them? (spyware / nagware / **ware?)
Yeah, when it launched it was cool and hip. Free public CVS server to host your open source cool project was cool. Probably went downhill as the ad market fell apart post dot-com, and the only way to get revenue was big green download buttons.
Yes, they used to be great for open source projects. They did get wrapped up in controversy where another company took over and were including other software in the installers, if you weren't careful to uncheck the optional (and unrelated) software. There is still great software hosted there, like FileZilla if you use a Windows environment. FileZilla did have the optional software installs for about a year or so, but as long as you paid attention, it was easy to get around (you just had to pay attention, but that's not an excuse for what they did).
Yes, they were cool once upon a time. It the place to be, you didn't have to host your own CVS without charge (no git back then, hell, even SVN was released few years after SF). It was like geocities.
It looks almopst impossible today, but launching a service was really hard and expensive back then. It cost a lot of money/effort in just software. All that stuff you can just download and it actually works? No way man, didn't exist yet.
That is why LAMP stack was so great back then, it was free, working and reasonably low-maintenence and super easy to set-up.
It's been a while since I bothered with SF but AFAIR the maintainer can select which file is the default download that you get through the big button.
There is still some code hosted on SourceForge that has no other public source. This is unsettling because I don't know how long SourceForge will continue operating and Wayback Machine captures of SF pages don't include tarballs. Download backups yourself whenever you find something like this.
I'm contributing to someone's software that started as an academic project. The current version is on GitHub with history back to 2014 but early releases back to 2008 (from before the author started using version control) are on SF in the form release_1.0.tgz, release_1.1.tgz, etc. I stumbled on these old versions this weekend while looking for related material. Once I decompressed them I found that they contained notes and old code that really helps to understand the current project's evolution and structure.
Yeah, what especially irks me with SourceForge is the common habit of projects regularly deleting all outdated releases (due to some per-project size limit? or just not to clutter up the list?). In old projects with messy releases, it can be very hard to piece together exactly which revisions went into a version "x.y.z" that everyone else depended on, except by actually looking into the released files. If those files don't get archived anywhere, they just get lost to the ether. (At least, short of a manhunt for anyone with the files in an ancient backup at the bottom of the sea.)
The fact that letters "SF" may need explanation in a context of code hosting and building says how thoroughly the job has been done. A number of good alternatives exist, there's no monoculture (even though some market domination is definitely in place, but now by a mysterious GH).
That doesn't sound true to me at all, except maybe in some very small niches. I've used Bitbucket at exactly one job; I've found Codeberg, but no project I've used was actually hosted there; and literally everything else I see or use is on Github.
I've used bitbucket at almost every job I've had. I suspect it's usage is much higher for private companies than people realize - if you've already bought into Atlassian for JIRA or Confluence it makes bitbucket an obvious selection.
Why is that? Jira github integration is nice and simple.
Why wouldn’t it be? Simpler to use first party integration and have centralized user management. Bitbucket works just fine.
Bitbucket is also just good - legitimately. I prefer the UI for a lot of stuff.
GitLab is relatively more widely represented, but of the projects I encounter, about 2-3% are on GitLab. I encountered projects on Codeberg, too, and even on sr.ht.
A bunch of larger projects have a mirror on GitHub for easier access.
BTW there's launchpad.net which is often overlooked, bit it's vital for Ubuntu-specific projects.
At paid day jobs, I had to use BitBucket at least twice, and I miss better code review tools, like Phabricator.
GitHub definitely dominates the market, partly due to the network effects, but I don't think they have a lot of moat. If something goes badly enough wrong there, there will be plenty of viable alternatives with an easy to trivial migration path.
Their moat is a billion development tool vendors that have "integrate with Github" as a must-have and expected functionality.
It's overlooked because in true Canonical fashion they went hard in on their not-invented-here-syndrome VCS that nobody asked for or wanted. That and also the integration with Ubuntu and nothing else.
A decent number of larger open source projects self-host.
Everything has at least a mirror on GitHub, but quite a lot of projects are either on GitLab (e.g. KiCad) or self-host (freedesktop).
There is also a lot of stuff on Gitee (China), but due to langauge barrier, it's hard to judge.
It reminds me of how Stackoverflow won so successfully that to even know about the old "expert sex change" joke is to thoroughly date oneself in modern conversation.
Earlier today I said that "what your github stars say about you" site was slashdotted. No one reacted so maybe I'll write about it on my LJ.
SF is SourceForge, which at the time effectively had a monopoly (and also sucked)
It still sucks, but it sucked then too.
I miss mitch hedberg
I now realize that it's SourceForge. :)
I thought he was talking about SpaceForce. Wait until we get to 2050, SpaceForce develops a really shitty monoculture. That's why I came back.
This post replied to a post talking about Source Forge. Had the same problem :)
SourceForge
Sourceforge.
SourceForge, probably.
I think it means SourceForge.
You sound like you're proud of this work and this plan and this sequence of events.
code.google going away, without the excuse that google itself was going away, after I had started to rely on it and link to it in docs and scripts all over the place, is what taught me to never depend on google for anything.
If google had said "The purpose of this service is an academic goal of Googles, not to serve users needs. This service will be shut off as soon as Googles academic purpose is met." I would not have used it.
But Google did not say that. Google presented the service as a service whos purpose was to be useful to users. And only because of that, we used it.
Do you see the essential problem here? Effectively, Google harnessed users for it's own purposes without their consent by means of deception. The free-ness of the service that the users received doesn't even count as a fair trade in a transaction because the transaction was based on one party misinforming the other.
So thanks for all your work making the world a better place.
It didn't go away, though. It got archived and that archive is still up and running today. Those links you put all over the place should still be working.
That's not an accurate representation of what DannyBee said. Moreover, what DannyBee did say is in line with what Google itself said was its goal when the service launched: https://support.google.com/code/answer/56511
"One of our goals is to encourage healthy, productive open source communities. Developers can always benefit from more choices in project hosting."
This does not appear to be a good faith argument.
None of what DannyBee said in their comment aligns with that interpretation. Neither does that interpretation line up with Google's publicly stated goals when they launched Google Code.
"It got archived" means it went away for actual use. i.e. in not-just-read-only fashion
But that's ok! It's easy to switch to a new code host. It's hard to change all the links on the internet if your link rots.
Putting a service like code.google into read-only mode is pretty much the ideal outcome for a discontinued service.
Google should be praised for how they behaved here.
Coding is a solitary activity? Switching everyone to a new environment is hard.
Also, "Google sunset their project really well" is damning with faint praise.
Sure, but this is the danger you get when you rely on an outside vendor's service for anything. If you don't want to deal with this danger, then you should never, ever use an external vendor's service for anything; you should only use your own self-hosted solutions.
Of course, Google does have a worse track record than some when it comes to their services being EOLed if they aren't search, Maps, etc., but still, this can happen with anything: it can be shut down, or bought out by a competitor, etc.
I don't think so in this case. I'd say Google has done a poor job of sunsetting other projects of theirs, but if this one actually keeps all the links alive albeit in read-only mode, that's really a lot better than most other EOLed or shut-down (like due to bankruptcy) services (from Google or anyone else), where it just disappears one day.
Yes, that's the point of the above comments. The repeated lesson is that there's always a risk of shutdown, but don't trust google in particular to keep services running.
"It didn't go away, though. It got archived and that archive is still up and running today. Those links you put all over the place should still be working."
I think this is misrepresenting what the commenter stated. He appears to have stated the project hosting service "went away". This fits with the context of the OP which is comparing project hosting services, e.g., Google Code, Sourceforge, Github.
If the context was software archives, e.g., software mirrors, instead of project hosting, then we could indeed claim "Google Code" still exists. However, the context is project hosting. And no one can upload new projects or revisions to Google Code anymore. Google Code project hosting did in fact "go away":
https://codesite-archive.appspot.com/archive/about
The old https://code.google.com/p/projectname URLs need to be redirected to https://code.google.com/p/archive/projectname
Google then redirects these /archive URLs to storage.googleapis.com
Too much indirection
https://code.google.com/p/projectname becomes
https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-...
Downloads
https://storage.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/google-...
He made that claim but then conflated it by talking about "those links being gone" which isn't true.
I'm going to defend Google on this. They don't need to maintain products forever but this case is a good way to shut down a service. Allow access to existing projects but make clear that active projects need to go somewhere else. The commenter can be upset that they can't use Google Code as a product but they shouldn't misrepresent the situation by saying the code is inaccessible. I checked a university project I created 15 years ago and it's still there. The commenter is objectively incorrect.
I don't think this is a valid criticism. The web is designed explicitly to do this. You can still access the code, that's good enough.
No, it's not good enough. The service went away.
You're free to expect for-profit businesses to fully support a free product forever. Just as they're free to decide they don't want to do that.
Thats funny, no business ever does anything for free.
People/businesses who do stuff for free, ask for donations.
There is a difference between
And
These are not the same. One of these makes it out to be the singular goal. The other does not.
This is a repeatable pattern:
This is why we should all be cautious about any non-core free service from major companies.Is GitHub a core service of Microsoft?
And, how will the existence of source control management in both GitHub and Azure DevOps be reconciled?
They're sharing a lot of the resources as pragmatically as possible it seems. GH Actions and DevOps workflows are really similar, and afaik run on the same clusters of hardware.
There's also some pretty decent integration features for DevOps projects with source control in GitHub for that matter iirc. Not to mention the potential upsell to/from GH Enterprise and/or Azure DevOps.
I can imagine at some point, GH Enterprise and Azure DevOps may become more similar and share more infrastructure over time.
Microsoft has over six thousand repos on Github including flagships like Typescript and VSCode. For all intents and purposes, it is a core service.
Microsoft is a different beast because so much of their revenue is B2B. Continuity of operations is kind of their whole deal. Google Workspace is the equivalent Google product and they're much less likely to dump a service, unlike the rest of Google.
Github is free for a large class of users, but it's also an enterprise product that feeds off the funnel created by the free userbase. Almost every developer knows github by now, knows how to use it and integrating your own source control management with the place where all of your open source dependencies live is a significant lock-in effect. And while I don't know the numbers for Github, I'd expect that GH itself is profitable or at least could be profitable.
Very close actually. Their strategy has always been to build essential developer tools. Developers, developers, developers.
So I think it is core to the way Microsoft expands and holds market share. And that market has changed to not only want windows only tools, so they change with it. Microsoft culture has always been kind of pragmatic. They were a walled garden for developers when they could get away with it (and still are for some), but now they have opened up a bit out of need.
I hate to break it to you be GitHub is going to shut down too. Everything does.
People are just now catching on that Google services always fold and leave you hanging. Your comment is insightful. You're ahead of the curve predicting that eventually non-Google services will screw you too.
Whats the solution? Is the future self hosted? Making it accessible for non-technical people?
Every profitable company on earth, ever.
The only real tragedy here is that Google really did have best-of-industry semantic search integrated into their code searching tools, something that nobody has been able to replicate.
GitHub is great, but it's absolute ass for search. To the point where for any nontrivial question I have to pull down the repo and use command-line tooling on it.
New GitHub full text search [1] is amazing. It is so good that for me it often replaces StackOverflow - I just use it to see how some API function is being used. Especially useful if you're searching for an example with a specific argument value.
[1] https://cs.github.com/
have you used google's internal code search though? the link you posted is amazing in its performance, for sure. but once you are in some repo and doing what most of us call "code search", github drops off in utility vs google's internal tooling pretty quickly.
i'm only remarking on this because of the context in the parent you are replying to, whom i agree with. local tooling is better than what github provides. as a standalone comment i would simply upvote you.
Chances are that a random stranger on the Internet has not used Google's internal code search. Even if that person has, it would be useful to provide the context for others to understand.
They're talking about Kythe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Kythe
https://youtu.be/VYI3ji8aSM0?si=D3Z3FIsB8wa7MTE6
Think jump-to-def and listing cross references working with c++ aliases, across generated code boundaries, etc.
I've used both. Google's code search is usually better if you know what you're looking for. It's less so if you need to do something that involves cross-language references (e.g. code file that references a translation string).
Why is this not the default?
I believe it is nowadays. For a while it was in beta.
Do you mean the non-semantic indexing, which covered most of Google Code? Like grep-style supporting, but no real semantic data?
Or are you talking about the few repos that had semantic indexing via Kythe (chromium, android, etc)? We never got that working for generic random open repos, primarily because it requires so much integration with the build system. A series of three or four separate people on Kythe tried various experimentation for cheaply-enough hooking Kythe into arbitrary open repos, but we all failed.
I'm talking about Kythe, and learning that it ran into issues generalizing it for non-Google-controlled APIs explains a lot of the history I thought I knew!
Yea we never had it for even all Google controlled repos, just the ones that would work with us to get compilation units from their build system.
I was the last one to try (and fail) at getting arbitrary repos to extract and index in Kythe. We never found a good solution to get the set of particular insanity that is Kythe extraction working with random repos, each with their own separate insane build configs.
It almost makes me wonder if the right approach (had Google been willing to invest in it) would have been to wed Kythe and Bazel to solve that "insane build configs" problem.
"Okay, you want generic search? Great. Here's the specific build toolchain that works with it. We'll get around to other build toolchains... Eventually maybe."
Would have been a great synergy opportunity to widen adoption of Bazel.
Isn't it working here: https://cs.opensource.google/bazel/bazel/+/master:src/main/s...
I remember there were docs how to onboard a repo to that list.
Yea it's still there, that is backed by Kythe.
It's not like Google (or anybody else) makes this easy to know. And call me jaded, but something tells me official Google PR channels would not have been really helpful for this.
And also - are most engineers in your sort of position even free to remark on such projects w.r.t. NDAs, etc?
"I'm not a journalist, but in an ideal scenario, how would somebody have known that you were one of the key members of the project?"
It's not about asking me, it's about not asserting things you don't know.
Instead of saying "people did x for y reason" when you have literally no data on x or y, you could say "I don't know why x happened, i only know about z". Or if it's super important you try to put something there, beforehand, you could say "hey does anyone know why x happened? I'm working on a blog post and want to get it right".
Then, someone like me who saw it could happily email you or whatever and say "hey, here's the real story on x".
Or not, in which case you can leave it at "i don't know".
The right answer is not to just assert random things you make up in your head and force people to correct you. I'm aware of the old adage of basically "just put wrong stuff out there and someone will correct you", but i generally think that's super poor form when it's about *other people or things and their motivations". I care less when it's about "why is the sky blue".
In this case, it also happens that there are plenty of on-record interviews and other things where what i said, was said back in the day.
So a little spleunking would have told them the answer anyway.
This explains so much about modern media, news, and story-telling. It's easier to make up a plausible narrative that supports your story than simply admitting you don't know.
You can see how as the article develops, they go from being "uncertain what made GitHub succeed" to definitively being sure about why it succeeded. It doesn't surprise me that details were glossed over as the story rose to the ultimate crescendo of "GitHub dominates".
This is how a good tale is spun and the people lap it up. What's a good tale without a bit of embellishment? (said every bard since antiquity)
You think you can ask google and get an honest reply?
To be a bit more generous: I think from Scott Chacon's point of view, "They had no taste and we beat them in the market" is a fair way to hold the elephant. Lacking the Google-internal perspective, it's a reasonable conclusion from the signal he has. I don't get the sense from this post that he's trying to publish a doctoral thesis on the historical situation in the industry; he's providing some primary-source testimony from his point of view.
I guess i'm going to disagree with you.
He's not just providing primary source testimony from his point of view, he's trying to pretend he has primary source testmony on what others were doing as well.
If he left out the parts where he has no data (or said i don't know), it would have IMHO been a better post, and actually primary source testimony.
You also don't run into the Gell-Mann amnesia problem this way.
To each their own, of course.
Yeah but you said "nobody bothers to actually ask other people things anymore" and I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to ask about this when the probability of getting an answer is so low.
I'd imagine that if you can say "I don't know why x happened" then you can also save some breath and say nothing at all, and there are billions of folks doing that right now.
Putting out a general inquiry of "why did x happen?" also has a lot of stigma attached to it in RTFM, LMGTFY internet culture. The result will not be a cloud of other people interested in the answer upvoting the question to make it visible to folk who might actually know. Snide comebacks notwithstanding the question will languish forgotten in a dusty corner of whichever forum it was asked within.
But bold assertions based on plausible conjecture? That can earn upvotes, drive engagement, draw ad clicks, and sometimes even prompt corrections from actual experts.
Certainly not an ideal situation but this does appear to be where we're at.
The way it used to work is that tech journalists (or sports journalists, or any other type) had contacts in the industry. If those people were not directly involved, they probably could at least suggest someone else who might know. Leads were followed up, and eventually the writer got the story.
I'm not sure how it works now, cynically I would suggest that the writer asks an LLM to write the story, gets a rehash of Wikipedia and other sources, and they maybe makes some attempts at firsthand verification.
That is neat, but Scott Chacon is not a journalist, does not act like a journalist and what you are reading is not tech journalism.
You are reading the personal diary of someone with personal connection to a topic and complaining that it is not up to the standards of professional journalism.
I'm complaining about nothing, here.
Journalists are supposed to investigate not speculate because finding an email is too hard
Well, finding, vetting, and getting comments from sources is like half of journalism. If you can't or won't do that, whatever you are doing is probably not journalism. It's just an editorial, think-piece, or whatever.
Maybe a cofounder of GitHub has the reach and network to ask for the e-mail of someone who worked on the Google Code team. A journalist might not, that's true.
Just flat out saying they had no taste in product development, however, is a bit of trash talking for no reason.
So wait, you tried to prevent SF to become a "shitty monoculture"?
First: That sounds completely not like Google
Second: Now you have GH as the "shitty monoculture" (owner is MS and erases your license for Co-pilot)
Third: >>We folded it up because we achieved the goal we sought at the time, and didn't see a reason to continue.
Yeah ok that sounds like Google, try's to enter another market just to hurt them then folds ;)
This was 2006 Google, which did stuff semi-altruistically all the time.
At that point, SF was serving malware and stuff. It was really not a great time.
Github became a monoculture years later when others folded. Google code was shut down in 2016. Github wasn't quite a monoculture then.
I also said, back in 2014, that it might be necessary to do something like google code again in 5-10 years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8605689
10 years later, here we are i guess :)
Though i think what i said then still holds - Github is not anywhere near as bad or unreliable as SF was.
SF served "malware" in 2013 NOT 2006:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Adware_controversy
After slashdot was purchased from condenast (i think?)
I mean, that's just when they did it fairly deliberately. Regardless, I think you would be hard pressed to argue SF was a great hosting environment when Google Code launched, which was the point.
But SF had FTP, Websites, SVN hosting and i think even a WIKI, so you can hardly compare it with Google-Code...and hey at least they opensource'd their "forge":
https://allura.apache.org/
IDK i don't have such bad memory's about SF, even today you serve big files over SF because of GH limits.
SourceForge was originally open source, but they later closed it. GNU Savannah (https://savannah.gnu.org/) runs on a fork of the last open version of SourceForge.
True after slashdot got buy'd, they also served malware AFTER the takeover (2013), and now look at that year:
Allura graduated from incubation with the Apache Software Foundation in March >>2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Allura
Google-Code was in 2006 right?
They had a bad name for the download pages being ad-infested even before they bundled the malware in the installers.
(And yes, fake download buttons on a site serving binary downloads went exactly where you'd expect.)
Yes and today Ad-Sense (Google) took the Crown from being then biggest Scam AD's deploy-er.
And really i don't think that's true before they where sold, ad's sure, scam/malware stuff? I don't think so...at least i cant remember.
I do wish there were enough incentive to have a strong commercial gerrit offering. There are some very good ideas in gerrit, and it would have strong differentiation vs github-styled offerings.
Not just because I like gerrit, but because the github monoculture is wearing on me.
For a comparison on the scale of harm from the monoculture, recall that SourceForge was bundling malware with downloads, and still has a full page of ads when you download from it.
If I recall correctly, SVN was also more popular than Git at the time, so migrating hosts was a lot more painful than now...
SVN's model is what everyone is using. Sure you git, but almost nobody is using the distributed parts - they all sync to a central sever (github). SVN just could get user management, or merges right - those should be solvable problems but somehow were not. (I don't know enough about SVN to speculate on why they didn't)
The main reason is that SVN's model of branching/tagging is based on directories in the working directory, whereas git's model (and to a certain extent, commercial SVNs like Clearcase and Perforce) is that branching/tagging is of the entire repository and not related to the file tree structure.
This is a fundamental difference and the reason that git's model works much better when branching/merging.
And then you force people to change from google code to something else just to prove a point since people then where unable to setup svn server ;)
Even today you find death links from google code repos.
It's a bit of a cop out to say "we were never trying to win"
If you were never trying to win, that's a product failure
You should have been trying to win, you should have built a strong competitor to GitHub and you shouldn't have let it rot until it was shut down
The world would have been a better place if Google code tried to be as good as GitHub
It was similar with Chrome. Internet Explorer was the monoculture browser and stagnating. Google had things they wanted to do on the web but needed better browsers. The original goal was to introduce competition in the browser space so that all browsers would get better. They may have changed goals along the way, but that was the original stated goal. In the end they killed IE and now they are the monoculture outside of Safari.
When Chrome was released, Internet Explorer was not the monoculture browser, and 1/3 of the users had Firefox installed.
It's literally not? We had a goal from the beginning - create enough competition to either force SF to become better (at that time it was infinite ads and malware), or that someone else wins.
That's your goal, not mine (or at the time, Google). Feel free to do it!
You don't like what we had as a goal - that's okay. It doesn't mean we either failed, or had the wrong goal. We just had one you don't happen to like.
One of the things to ask before you either start something or keep doing something is "who actually wants you to win?" If the answer is "nobody", it might not make any sense to do.
It's not obvious in 2016 anyone would have wanted us to win. By then, Google had lived long enough to see itself become a villain. There was reasonable competition in the space.
I don't believe we would have really served people well to keep going.
It sucks you're getting so much anti-Google sentiment when you're not at all attached to the reasons google sort of sucks.
what?
Different groups of people have different goals. Not every group of people has "winning" a market as their primary goal.
Being a Google insider comes with the gift of being able to see the real rationales behind many products, and also the curse that nobody outside will believe you.
This is perhaps true of all big companies, but Google also seem to adopt a more passive PR strategy and don't try too hard to explain things, and it's just that much more difficult to understand Google when everyone else is louder.
I hope you never have to work for Apple ;)
different projects have different objectives? The guy literally worked on the project! There were 4 people at its peak! Why would you think that would be the source of a major initiative?
Though there probably is some deeper critique about how you have a pretty amazing service running with "just" 4 people and aren't able to turn that into something useful beyond that objective. Innovator's Dilemma I guess.
Like Google+ and all the other attempts:
https://killedbygoogle.com/
Google is actually the good guy to prevent monopolies, we just don't understand them ;)
If Google Code succeeded, it’s hard to imagine that Google would not have tried to monetize it someday.
This also reminds me of Google’s (also initial) position on Chrome vis-a-vis Firefox: create a product “not trying to make money, or whatever” but just to limit the market share of a competitor.
The less flattering term for this in the context of anticompetitive behavior is “dumping”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
It seems highly likely that a successful Google Code would be used as an onramp to Google Cloud. IOW, indirect monetization so it likely would still have a generous free component.
Yeah exactly, it is extremely easy to imagine this, because when Github was acquired by Microsoft in 2018, Diane Greene (who headed Google Cloud at the time) commented on this
It sounds like Google would have paid some amount of billions for Github, but not the amount that Microsoft paid
I personally don't think Google would have tried to monetize Google Code, even if it had 10x or even 50x the users that it eventually had. (And I say that having worked at Google, and on Google Code briefly!)
I think it made more sense as complementary to another product (which in some sense explains a big problem with developing products at Google)
---
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/google-cloud-ceo-diane-green...
CNBC previously reported that Google was looking at buying GitHub, but Greene wouldn’t confirm the report.
“I think the only thing I’ve said is that I wouldn’t have minded having them,” said Greene.
Relatedly, it is hard to understand how operating Google Code in a manner “never trying to win”, “not trying to make money, or whatever” and “just to prevent … a monoculture” was in the best interests of Google the corporation and its shareholders
"If Google Code succeeded, it’s hard to imagine that Google would not have tried to monetize it someday."
Google code did succeed in that sense. It had hundreds of thousands of 30-day active projects, and some insane market share of developers.
I don't honestly remember if it was even shrinking when we decided to stop taking in new projects.
I doubt we would have monetized it directly (IE sell an enterprise version) - the entire market for development tools is fairly small.
In 2022 it was ~5 billion dollars, and future estimates keep getting revised downwards :).
CAGR has been about 10-14% in practice, sometimes less.
I don't remember if it's still true, but most of that 5 billion dollars was going to Atlassian (80% at one point).
Now, if you project backwards to 2006, and compare it to other markets google could be competing in, you can imagine even if you got 100% of this segment it would not have actually made you a ton directly.
Indirectly, eh, my guess is you still make more off the goodwill than most other things.
It's actually fairly rare to make any significant money at development tools directly.
Nowadays, the main source even seems to be trying to sell AI and productivity, rather than tools.
In 2018, MS bought Github for 7B.
Google Code started to be shutdown mid-2015. In 2015 it wasn't clear yet that it would be valuable for Google to host the world's code?
Well, it is hard/very distasteful to put ads on a source code hosting website, so this likely isn't aligned with Google's interest. No, I am not joking.
github shows me ads to their other tools, conferences and whatever all the time. And my company is a paying customer.
Herein lies the tragedy. Google could've offered, even sold, its internal development experience (code hosting, indexing and searching, code reviews, build farms, etc...) which is and was amazing, but it decided that it wasn't worth doing and let GitHub eat its lunch.
Developer infrastructure at google reported into cloud from 2013 to 2019, and we (i was there) tried to do exactly that: building products for gcp customers based on our experience with building interval developer tools. It was largely a disaster. The one product I was involved with (git hosting and code review) had to build an MVP product to attract entry level GCP customers, but also keep our service running for large existing internal customers, who were servicing billion+ users and continuously growing their load. When Thomas Kurian took over GCP, he put all the dev products on ice and moved the internal tooling group out of cloud.
This is a very bold statement, isn't it? So Google says the credit of making SourceForge (very deservedly) irrelevant is theirs and not GitHub's (or SourceForge themselves)?
As a complete nobody, why can't I think that in every example of a product launch, if it wins it wins, and if it fails, I can claim it was never intended to win?
I had this theory that generations raised on the internet and exposed to it from birth would be the most humble generations ever, because we all look for ways to be uniquely valuable, and it became nearly impossible to be egotistical when faced with the entirety of even just a mature youtube platform.
Instead what we got was higher degrees of selective attention, and very elaborate and obscure flip-cup tricks.
I don’t see a contradiction; it’s all part of the story.
Understanding your (Google’s) motivations explains why Google Code didn’t improve as much. It doesn’t contradict that Github had better UI, or their explanation of their motivation to build a better UI.
To be fair, you "lacking taste" and "not trying to win" are not mutually exclusive. You could argue they are respectively the proximate and ultimate cause for GitHub's win.
Initially I thought SF means San Francisco, and I thought "Wow, what kind of monoculture can be prevented by Google Code", and then I realized that SF meant Source Forge.
Props for serving as primary source material. One of the reasons I, basically, no longer trust "tech" journalism.
Aside from too many hit/bait/paid-for pieces, writers have simply gotten "lazy" as they're no longer incentivized to "get it right"--just "get it out".
Granted, this post is, essentially, meant to be a whitepaper for their product offering, but c'mon guys, you had the references to reach out, but were lazy for...reasons?!
AWS also has a history of some of these "buit-to-marketize" products (e.g. CodeCommit), but at least there's a "solid core" of a stack to re-build these niche services from-scratch.
What's Google "reliable core" anymore aside from Compute Engine and Search? Don't get me started on Cloud SQL.
raises eyebrow
When there were 4 of you?
So about $800k a year for that time period?
Just out of interest?
Wasn't Google reported among the bidders for GitHub?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/github-interest-from-google-...
Maybe Google Code itself was never trying to win but tendering an significant offer to the auction suggests Google was trying to win something.