Every expression of anyone's reaction to a brand is “valid market signal” on the level that that is true of this, but that doesn't stop most of that from being noise in an HN comment thread.
> So I'll side with automatically appending one such comment in every Google thread until their behavior visibly changes.
Such an automated comment would still be noise, but would have less of excuse of being a valid market signal than comments posted organically, even if that was an excuse (which it's not.)
If HN is interested in the success/failure of products & services, product-market fit and such, then what Google have done to themselves is a fascinating phenomenon.
In the past, many companies have had "not great" reputations for supporting products, but surely Google have taken it to level not seen before. The fact that pretty much all of their products live in the cloud rather than being software that can continue to be used beyond the support period (ala Win98) has probably contributed a lot to that. I think the way that potential customers react to that reputation is very interesting.
We're at the point now where Google have clearly acquired this reputation and it's very likely to affect the adoption of anything they try to launch. The next phase will be Google recognising that and trying to correct it somehow. I'm keen to follow along and see how that goes.
> If HN is interested in the success/failure of products & services, product-market fit and such, then what Google have done to themselves is a fascinating phenomenon.
Sure, that's a reason discussion of the phenomenon is appropriate for HN, just as discussion of AI-driven automated spamming of message boards as a marketing technique might be. (Though, even then, not an appropriate thing to derail every thread in which a Google product is the subject into.)
OTOH, that doesn't make the phenomenon itself appropriate for HN, in any place.
> It is a necessary lens to view any new Google product through, though.
No, it's not.
> There is a real risk that they will abandon anything they launch.
There is a real risk that any company will do that, either by internal choice, or by change of plan due to acquisition, or by business failures. It really isn't necessary or helpful for people who have no interest in Google products because of their view of the brand (whether for this reason or any other) to pollute every discussion thread about a Google product with this.
The products themselves are often very interesting. The next step in consideration is whether they are fit for purpose, though. Google have made a reputation for themselves for abandoning their products/services, but at the same time anyone pragmatic will realise that they won't abandon everything they launch. So if you're interested in taking up a Google product, you will then consider whether it's one of the products/services that they are likely to continue supporting or not.
I think it's highly predictable. Where in their org does it fit, how much have they invested in it, how big is the opportunity, etc.
In terms of HN’s overt purpose, it is.
> it's a valid market signal
Every expression of anyone's reaction to a brand is “valid market signal” on the level that that is true of this, but that doesn't stop most of that from being noise in an HN comment thread.
> So I'll side with automatically appending one such comment in every Google thread until their behavior visibly changes.
Such an automated comment would still be noise, but would have less of excuse of being a valid market signal than comments posted organically, even if that was an excuse (which it's not.)