Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Google Confirms Shut Down of Schemer

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the end-of-the-line dept.

Google 170

An anonymous reader writes "Google has confirmed it is shutting down its goal sharing service Schemer. The company says Schemer's last day will be February 7, after which all data will be permanently deleted. The iOS app has already been pulled from Apple's App Store while the Android app on Google Play hasn't been updated since October 2012."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here we go again... (2, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 10 months ago | (#45933959)

Google confirms it will shut down goal sharing service Schemer...

Queue the folks who built their entire business plan around this free service and will now bleat about how unfair it is, proving once again the Google == Apple == "Micro$oft" == pure corporate evil.

Re:Here we go again... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45933993)

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to build there business around any google web service nowadays. History has shown they really don't give a damn about their users except whether or not they can pump them for more money.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 10 months ago | (#45934157)

It seems like it's a stupid idea to build a business around any particular web service at all nowadays (unless it's something that's easily transferred between competing services), but Google services do seem to be much worse than average for longevity.

Re:Here we go again... (4, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45934193)

Well, unless it's based on a a free, open protocol that you can host yourself if required.

Re:Here we go again... (3, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#45934315)

Well, unless it's based on a a free, open protocol that you can host yourself if required.

And you can easily get your data out of the system. Because if you cannot get your data, you cannot host it elsewhere.

Re:Here we go again... (3, Interesting)

Tool Man (9826) | about 10 months ago | (#45934855)

Well, unless it's based on a a free, open protocol that you can host yourself if required.

And you can easily get your data out of the system. Because if you cannot get your data, you cannot host it elsewhere.

That part at least is something that Google does put some work into. You can use Google Takeout to get quite a bit back, in a form you may conceivably use elsewhere. Not sure about Schemer specifically though.

Re:Here we go again... (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 10 months ago | (#45935083)

This (and the getting data out of the system bit that another responder mentioned) is precisely why I added the phrase "unless it's something that's easily transferred between competing services". Web services are fine if you can transfer everything to a competing provider with a few keystrokes, but when your business is reliant on something totally proprietary run by one other company, which has no alternatives whatsoever, you've put your business at great risk.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45935239)

This is part of the reason I'm amazed at companies (and people) typing themselves to Apple mobile devices. Most corporations use a lot of open-source software and are now seeing the advantages at not being at the mercy of a vendor for a proprietary product, but quite a few don't realize that openness can extend to hardware, operating systems, protocols, etc. Oh well, I'm sure they'll learn eventually.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 10 months ago | (#45935421)

What companies are tying themselves to Apple mobile devices? I guess you're talking about something where they're taking iPads and building them into something else. I guess the justification there is there's not too expensive and easy to get, but it really would make more sense to use Android tablets instead since there's multiple vendors, and it's even possible to root them and install alternative software on them.

With people, it's easy to understand. Individuals just don't think in these terms much. They either take it for granted that a vendor will always be around (and really, Apple isn't going anywhere anytime soon) and don't think about abuse (like having your digital media deleted because some license-holder said so, like has happened with Amazon ebooks), or figure they can buy something else later.

Re:Here we go again... (2)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 10 months ago | (#45935589)

it's even better to simply have one of the companies build you a god damn android tablet that's already rooted since a large company could then get exactly what they want for a pretty reasonable price. Hell at that point, they'd have a fully customized version of droid that doesn't talk to the Google Mothership.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 10 months ago | (#45935827)

Well yes, if you're going to buy them in large enough quantities, that's the best thing to do. If you're not buying in large enough quantities, however, that's probably not an option.

Re:Here we go again... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934205)

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to build there business around any google web service nowadays. [...]

You'd be surprised. Some people are even stupid enough to not know the difference between 'their' and 'there.'

Re:Here we go again... (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#45934327)

And other people are ignorant enough to not know the difference between "ignorant" and "stupid".

Re:Here we go again... (0)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 10 months ago | (#45935145)

And even other people are ignorant enough to not know that grammatical errors are often careless mistakes (i.e. stupid [thefreedictionary.com] ) as opposed to a lack of knowledge (i.e. ignorant [thefreedictionary.com] ).

The AC was assuming the person had the correct knowledge but that they were careless in it's use hence the correct use of the word "stupid".

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935307)

it's = "it is", not the possessive, "its" - oh well, we can figure "it" out...

Re:Here we go again... (4, Interesting)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 10 months ago | (#45934341)

Raises hand.

My last company decided to Googleize just as I was leaving. The VeeP who set it in motion had a list of services he wanted. Thing is, we already provided nearly everything he wanted and none of the things he wanted were unique to Google's offerings. Even back then, there was a pretty significant list of services that Google had shut down and it was clear that it would be risky to heavily integrate anything beyond docs and email into our business practices. I have no idea how it turned out because my last day was in the middle of the transition.

Re:Here we go again... (4, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 10 months ago | (#45934907)

Raises hand.

My last company decided to Googleize just as I was leaving. The VeeP who set it in motion had a list of services he wanted. Thing is, we already provided nearly everything he wanted and none of the things he wanted were unique to Google's offerings. Even back then, there was a pretty significant list of services that Google had shut down and it was clear that it would be risky to heavily integrate anything beyond docs and email into our business practices. I have no idea how it turned out because my last day was in the middle of the transition.

Generally though, most companies struggle to compete with the reliability of Google offerings.

Also, they only seem to shut down side projects that I only hear about when they announce shutting them down. Call me when they shut down maps, gmail, search or android.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45936001)

I do realise that this is not in your "acceptable list" but they closed down igoogle (and reader but i never used their reader) I know a lot of people (nontechs aswell as techs) that really liked those products, havent found any good replacement and have settled on the (rather buggy and not as useful) alternative Netvibes. (You might not have heard about these products, but that does not mean they are not important to someone else - I would probably choose to have igoogle back even if it meant losing gmail)

A unique and well-working "side-project" can easilly be much more usefull than for example dime-a-dusin free email.

All of this ofcourse stands or falls with the premise that they are free to close down any free service they want. On the other hand, us products^Wusers are also free to whine and bitch about it :)

Re:Here we go again... (2, Informative)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 10 months ago | (#45934031)

"Cue". Unless you really mean to travel the world and get all these people to form a lineup.

Re:Here we go again... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934107)

No, "queue". The "parent", now unfortunately marked "troll" though it is not, means there will be a line of douche bags spewing forth.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#45934177)

They are a troll. It is proper to complain when a service you, apparently, foolishly accepted at face value from a giant company, is shut down leaving you hanging.

Your thesis is to derogate people for getting upset at something they have every right to get upset over. Is this a junior high cafeteria?

Re:Here we go again... (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 10 months ago | (#45934213)

A queue is a physical thing, it's literally people in a queue. The OP was talking about people "bleating", that is talking. For audio, you "cue" up the next complainer, like on a phone line.... You don't fly them from all around the world to put them in a physical line up of people waiting in line.

Re: Here we go again... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934273)

For fucks sake who gives a flying shit who wrote what right.

Re: Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935675)

People who aren't worthless, uneducated, illiterate "burger technicians."

Re: Here we go again... (1)

syockit (1480393) | about 10 months ago | (#45935855)

I'll take that term as an addition to my vocabulary, thank you.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#45934281)

A queue can also be a programming thing, namely a FIFO data structure. If you want to process complaints which can arrive asynchrously, it is probably a very good idea to put them into a queue, that is, to queue them.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 10 months ago | (#45934361)

But we're not talking about programming, we're talking about physical people.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934413)

What sort of crazy talk is this?

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 10 months ago | (#45934565)

But we're not talking about programming, we're talking about physical people.

No, we're talking about physical people's gripes in a web forum. The physical people are not embedded in Slashdot...

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934673)

But we're not talking about programming, we're talking about physical people.

Or companies who pretend to be people.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935695)

A queue in programming means the exact same thing as it does in real life. It's a line. What do you think FIFO stands for?

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934261)

Both cue and queue work in cases like this (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45934117)

Queue the folks who [...] will now bleat about how unfair it is

Unless you really mean to travel the world and get all these people to form a lineup.

The complaints do end up lining up one after another in the comments section. So both "cue" and "queue" work.

Re:Both cue and queue work in cases like this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934237)

The complaints do end up lining up one after another in the comments section. So both "cue" and "queue" work.

Nonsense. The comment section is more like a tree than a queue.

Re:Both cue and queue work in cases like this (3, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about 10 months ago | (#45934533)

The complaints do end up lining up one after another in the comments section. So both "cue" and "queue" work.

The resulting thread is exasperating and could take us anywhere, so Q (like on Star Trek) also works.

Re:Here we go again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934279)

I can't but think, don't put all your eggs in one basket. If they put everything on the line for a \free/ service they deserve to fail based solely on bad bushiness practices. At least Google is trying and creating new services, can't blame them for cutting of a bleeding limb.

Re:Here we go again... (2)

TWX (665546) | about 10 months ago | (#45934333)

Even more to the point, Google provided a backend that allowed startups to build on, but given the history of Google cutting things, once the proof-of-concept was created by the startups, it would have been in their interest to either license the backend from Google or to write their own. Google hasn't exactly been shy about this kind of behavior.

If commercial, paid-for products are allowed to write the floor out from under one, then I don't really see why a no-fee service should have stronger rules or expectations.

Re:Here we go again... (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 10 months ago | (#45934813)

In reality it shows what many of us have known for awhile now, which is that Google, like every other western corp, can't be counted on for anything whether you pay for it or not. FYI Google WAS getting paid for this, Google Reader, and every other app they shuttered THROUGH ADS, THAT is their business model, THAT is what they based the company on, now they are acting like "if it don't make iMoney it ain't worth having" and THAT is what is wrong with western corps and why they frankly ain't worth shit anymore.

Take IBM's PC division, they were making between 8-12% profit every year, year after year. But you see while most countries have companies that would say "solid profits every quarter, that's good right?" they weren't making the same as the #1 company of the time which was Dell, so out it had to go! I bet my last dollar that if you looked at all the apps Google has killed, Reader, Buzz, this? That they were all making a profit but it wasn't the profit of (insert #1 company) so it doesn't matter, its worthless.

This is why I've been telling people that actually like Google+ "Don't care about it, look at it as a throw away fly by night service as Google WILL shit all over it trying to make it FB and when it don't make FB money? It'll be shitcanned" and I have been saying this for months. Now what do we see? Google shitting on Google+ AND on Gmail [osnews.com] by making it so ANYBODY can add you to a circle and then spam you. its opt OUT not opt in, why? because G+ isn't making FB money, that's why! this is why you can consider every bit of Google to be as worthless as any fly by night, because if it isn't #1? It WILL be shit on and shitcanned, because all that exists is #1 as far as western business is concerned. being #2? is being shit, doesn't matter if its profitable, doesn't matter if its growing, its not #1 so its shit, its worthless.

Re:Here we go again... (5, Insightful)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 10 months ago | (#45935559)

WTF is Schemer? Even the god damn article doesn't tell me and if I don't know WTF it is, how does anyone else? Just another effen Google tool that nobody was told about being shut down because nobody used it. Chicken and Egg Issue. You don't tell folks about it so nobody fucking uses it. Shut it down.

Google could save lots of time/effort/PR by simply not starting these many apps/tools that they keep shutting down because they're not telling anyone about them.

Re:Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935631)

Hate to break this to you, but Google doesn't provide any services for free.

I found a dollar (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 10 months ago | (#45933971)

Yay. Vacation time!

Schemer? (4, Insightful)

hritcu (871613) | about 10 months ago | (#45933983)

Google what?

Google Plus (5, Interesting)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 10 months ago | (#45933985)

How long until they shut down Google Plus? Please tell me it's soon.

Re:Google Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934001)

No shit. I tried to play a Euchre app this weekend and it required Google+ for online play. I promptly uninstalled it. Here is the offending app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.karmangames.euchre [google.com]

Re:Google Plus (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934041)

NEVER going to happen. Seriously, they have embedded that fucker in everything, not the least of which is YouTube. It will never die unless Google dies. Seriously, there is no way they could remove the G+ tendrils that are constantly growing in to new areas. It's obviously one of their core projects.

Re:Google Plus (2, Interesting)

Adult film producer (866485) | about 10 months ago | (#45934593)

The Google+ integration with Youtube has forced me to turn comments off on my channel and link people to my own domain where I use Disqus for comments. I only have 7200+ subscribers but the new comments sections on youtube is unwieldly and very difficult to manage, especially because it's combined with Google+.

Re:Google Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935275)

Er, no. The google+ integration with youube may have led you to turn off comments etc. but it hasn't forced you to do so. Unless Eric Schmidt has been round your house with a machete insisting you turn off said comments and citing said integration as the reason. But I think that's unikely.

Re:Google Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935847)

if he intends to do any moderation at all on the comments.. then it is as good as a machete to the head.

but we all know the real reason google turned youtube accounts into g+ accounts and comments into g+ comments. this way they pushed up the usage statistics of g+.. by a factor of 20.

nobody gives a shit though, they all know that the g+ usage numbers are bullshit.

Re:Google Plus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934089)

How long until they shut down Google Plus? Please tell me it's soon.

waaa, boo hoo! google plus killed my cat! *sob sob sob*

Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google? (2)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 10 months ago | (#45934007)

I mean, Google was about to offer US$4B for Snapchat. I can't imagine it's that expensive for them to keep a service like this running, if for no other reason than to avoid the inevitable negative press like when they shut down Google Reader. Does anyone know how many users we're talking about, and how much administrative time?

Re:Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934023)

See the first post, modded down by morons.

Re:Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 10 months ago | (#45934039)

The first post was a pre-emptive whine, why shouldn't it get modded down? it added nothing to the discussion.

Re:Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934109)

ours is a post-emptive whine adding even less!

Re:Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934345)

perhaps you should look up the definition of whine and pre/post emptive for that matter as you don't seem to understand there meaning.

Re:Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#45934393)

perhaps you should look up the definition of whine and pre/post emptive for that matter as you don't seem to understand there meaning.

Meanwhile, you better look up the definition of "there" ...

Re:Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 10 months ago | (#45934573)

Does anyone know how many users we're talking about, and how much administrative time?

Can you imagine what kind of 'schemes' or 'shared goals' the trolls would be posting, without administrative monitoring?

I can already imagine the kiddies posting goals like "Go on a shooting spree," and every sort of criminal and racist objective in the book. And of course spammers......

Without substantial resources spent on moderation, it would be likely to degenerate into an internet cesspool, that makes Google+, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and Slashdot look like Utopia.

Re:Not a user, but is it that expensive for Google (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 10 months ago | (#45934635)

Interesting point. Although I would imagine that spammers could be dealt with automatically, much as they are in GMail.

Embrace, Extinguish, Destroy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934015)

Haven't we seen this somewhere else before?

Where? (4, Interesting)

Chompjil (2746865) | about 10 months ago | (#45934017)

I never heard of thisbut now that I have it looks intresting

Re: Where? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934257)

Yeah, I've never heard of it either before today. It looks very interesting to me too. I'm going to start using it now.

Re:Where? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934483)

Same here. I've never heard of thisbut.

Re:Where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934953)

That's my reaction to many of the news stories about Google shutting down a service. You'd think Google of all companies wouldn't be so shitty at advertising.

Google. An Advertising Company. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934047)

Google what now?

You'd think for a company like GOOGLE, they'd, you know, ADVERTISE their products.
I've literally never heard of this at all and I could name everything that was on Google Labs and the More page that lists "all" their services. (which are pretty damn hidden too, no wonder nobody bloody used them!)
ADVERTISE YOUR SHIT, GOOGLE.

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#45934175)

I have to agree. This is the first time I've ever heard of it! I have no idea what it's for, what it's limitations are, or where it might have gone had it survived. It is, literally, zero loss: it never existed as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (1)

Chemisor (97276) | about 10 months ago | (#45934269)

Maybe they should add that to their list of goals. Oh, wait...

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (3, Interesting)

DTemp (1086779) | about 10 months ago | (#45934381)

I had only heard of it because I found the iTunes page where they list all of the apps by Google. There are a couple others most people have never heard of there.

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (2)

saleenS281 (859657) | about 10 months ago | (#45934451)

God the irony of a company who makes 90+ % of their revenue from advertising not being able to market ANY of their own products for shit.

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (4, Interesting)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 10 months ago | (#45934499)

On the other hand, kudos to Google for not using their dominance in mail, search, Android and other services/products for trying to push Schemer down the throats of their users. They had a product, it didn't fly on its own, it's OK for it to die. Which is not what other companies are doing with bloatware software on phones, tablets and laptops. Nobody got a killer app by doing this and the people at Google seem to realize this.

Re: Google. An Advertising Company. (3, Insightful)

Dupple (1016592) | about 10 months ago | (#45934693)

You know they're just gonna roll it into G+ don't you?

That's how they'll try and monetize it

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (5, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | about 10 months ago | (#45934507)

Google in many ways looks like Microsoft of the early 2000s. It has lots of bright people, lots of money, and has an enormous range of products that make no money while being sustained by one monopoly product that makes incredible money. It was lucky enough to be the Last Big Thing before Apple hit top gear and it's desperate to find the Next Big Thing before it falls behind.

In its approach to products, however, Google is more accurately the ANTI-Apple. Apple starts from "what do customers need?" and ruthlessly eliminates everything but the purest core product that meets that customer need. Apple focuses on a tiny number of things that people want and does them as perfectly as it can within the time it has at a price that no competitor can match.

Google on the other hand starts from "what cool shit can we do and how can we make money out of it?" "Hey employees, spend 20% of your time brainstorming cool stuff, we'll see if we can use that shit". Google then dribbles ALL OF THAT SHIT out - not launches, dribbles - in broken half-finished beta versions and then waits to see if anything works. Google has no product focus and just has a nonstop conveyor belt of "cool shit" projects coming out the door - Answers, Jotbot, Jaiku, Notebook, Sidewiki, Gears, Wave, Buzz, etc etc etc - that die because they are technically nifty solutions to problems that nobody actually has. Even when something potentially cool like Google+ comes off the production line it's fighting an uphill battle from day one - is fundamentally crippled - because no thought has been given to how people will actually use it.

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935287)

Apple is dead. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (1)

LordOxford (3424511) | about 10 months ago | (#45936003)

Hi Swampash' Google Earth was and is "a wonder product" with many benefits - and risks, perhaps only eclipsed by wikipaedia. I get the impression that it's getting too Microslop.com friendly (such may be ESSENTIAL for many large internet corporations) ... but hey! who DOES own and direct it .... this "Schemer" may be a good idea that MS wants to control or kill... What is "Schemer", can it be non-corporately rescued? Should it be? I'm new to Slashdot, so please forgive any mis-operation in writing to you Oxford

Re:Google. An Advertising Company. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934549)

Actually, they did advertise it-- it's just that nobody pays any attention to Google ads. And why do you think people still continue to use Google? The same reason they started using it, you don't notice the ads.

I believe almost all of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934099)

, after which all data will be permanently deleted.

Yeah, right. Made inaccessible to the people it's associated with, perhaps.

The cloud: because centralisation into the hands of a distant, lofty few has worked really well throughout history.

Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45934105)

If it doesn't generate advertising revenue, Google will kill it.

Google's news archives recently went away. Google Scholar is a likely next candidate for the chopping block.

I'm worried about Google buying all those robotics companies. Profitability in advanced robotics is probably 5-10 years away. Google has not, in the past, demonstrated that kind of patience. "More wood behind fewer arrows" was their slogan for the first big round of cuts. Google could destroy the US robotics industry.

Re: Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934141)

The loss of Google Scholar would be truly devastating. No one is even approaching it's usability (I'm talking to you EBSCOHost and the like). Although, considering Google's recent history of aggressively closing down things that aren't profitable it may be inevitable. Fingers crossed that this won't happen.

Re: Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934505)

I would be shocked if it happened. Much more likely is that they would roll the search features into the main page and turn the scholar pages into part of Google Plus. Come to think of it, that's probably what they will do, someday.

Re: Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935969)

This could be quite interesting. Link the articles also at G+ to authors, give people chance to comment and discuss papers, whatever.. Of course the academic community is a niche product so not much real sense in that..

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 10 months ago | (#45934169)

Google could destroy the US robotics industry.

Google isn't the only company driving US industries into the ground, it's endemic in US corporate culture. Hopefully other countries will take over these industries.

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 10 months ago | (#45934211)

If it doesn't generate advertising revenue, Google will kill it.

Ok, and the problem with that is? They are a for-profit company, and if a product does not live up to revenue expectations it needs to go. Just like thousands of other companies do on a daily basis with their 'under performing' products.

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 10 months ago | (#45934367)

Google could destroy the US robotics industry.

Oh crap, what am I going to do when I can't replace that Courier V.42bis so that people can dial in to my BBS?

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (3, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 10 months ago | (#45934559)

aha, so this is what google +++ is for.

OK _

(dammit)

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (1)

SpzToid (869795) | about 10 months ago | (#45934847)

ACK

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934405)

Google's news archives recently went away. Google Scholar is a likely next candidate for the chopping block.

No. The sort of people that use Google Scholar are exactly the sort that they don't want to piss off -- because it is a form of search. And if people that do a lot of internet searching for a living start going to another search engine....

Shutting down Google Schemer... oh no, people are going to go somewhere else to store their .plan file? Anyway, it'll probably just be rolled out as a standard feature of Google Plus in a month or so.

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (1)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45934515)

Google could destroy the US robotics industry.

You have that backwards - and it the same mistake geeks made with Microsoft when /. was young. Buying up lots of small companies in a sector means there will be more such companies, not fewer, in 5 years. Startups do most of the innovation in tech, and mostly get funded on the hopes of being bought by a big player. When they do, many of the engineers move on to the next startup after a year. It doesn't matter if the big companies keep failing to market the products, because it's the engineers that are the industry.

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 10 months ago | (#45935117)

Perhaps the news archives wouldn't have been culled if the news paper companies didn't insist on suing them and demanding royalties for the content.

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935325)

I suspect google scholar is relatively inexpensive, generates a lot of goodwill and is internally useful. I doubt they'll kill it.

Also, google demonstrated a 5-year patience threshold with search, their origin al and still biggest product. I think of them not so much as a search company (certainly not as an advertising company, despite that's how they're marketing search) as an AI company. Crude and imperfect AI though it may be, it's machine decisions that underly their search technology and clearly underly the robotics and autonomous vehicle areas they're getting into. I actually think it's a good match and likely to be highly profitable (directly, without having to rely on advertising which more and more people are turning off) in a reasonable timeframe.

Re:Live by the cloud, die by the cloud (1)

turning in circles (2882659) | about 10 months ago | (#45935573)

Please don't foresage that Google Scholar is going away. I love Google Scholar. I have noted it's harder to find (if you don't have it bookmarked on your toolbar, as, for example, I do). Can I start a campaign?

So now the new tagline (1)

Megahard (1053072) | about 10 months ago | (#45934133)

"The end of the beginning of everything worth doing."

Ads (1)

ZDroid (2938715) | about 10 months ago | (#45934139)

Schemer is very interesting, but Google closes it, like Reader, just because it isn't ad-friendly. Oh, no.

Alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934163)

Do you know about an alternative to Google's Schemer?

Re:Alternative? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#45934241)

Just write a TODO list on a wiki page or EtherPad?

Or maybe use bugzilla? (After all, TODO lists and bug lists are not really different; indeed you could consider the fact that an item on a TODO list is not yet done a bug to be resolved).

Aw man (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934287)

I was hoping it was just that scheming Google being shut down. That anti competitive piece of garbage, who wants nanobots in your brain

Source: Eric Schmidt

There was a time when I thought Giigle was cool (4, Interesting)

Urkki (668283) | about 10 months ago | (#45934301)

Something about Google today makes me want to run to Microsoft's arms. At a time I even entertained the idea of working (well, seriously applying) for Google, when life situation would allow relocating. But something has gone sour, like milk. First there was just something in the taste, now it seems there are clumps in it already. Wave. Reader. Insistence of linking everything together in ways I am not comfortable with. This. Soon Scholar?

Who in their right mind is going to make any kind of investment (of time and effort) into any of Google's future stuff? Not me.

Re:There was a time when I thought Giigle was cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934439)

I agree. I finally worked my way through their haphazard Checkout documentation and just like that it was gone. Anything they have that even sort of works they arbitrarily change until it doesn't. What scares me is that Microsoft is acting a lot more like Google these days with half-baked and subsequently abandoned products.

Re:There was a time when I thought Giigle was cool (1)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45934527)

Eh, Google would still look good on the resume, and they can afford to relocate you while the vast array of smaller companies in Silly Valley can't. I recently went a different direction, for exactly the reasons you cite "something smells off", but if you don't already have a "big name" on your resume, any one of them is great for your career.

Google should have named its hardware Astatinebook (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 10 months ago | (#45934383)

...After the average half-life of a Google product idea.

Schemer? Who the fuck was in charge of names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45934597)

Do you suppose if Facebook was called Stalker it would have been a success?

Isn't it strange (2)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 10 months ago | (#45934851)

Isn't it strange how we hear about these types of 'services' going down, but we never hear about them going up? Am I missing something? By the looks of it, many people are like me in that they didn't know that this service existed at all. Is there a place that Google let's people know when they have a new service? It's not listed here [google.com] anywhere (maybe it's been removed already since it's about to be dumped). But is this a complete list?

It was replaced by a new service called Shermer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45935409)

Named after atheist Michael Shermer. It greatly simplified goal sharing. It new UI emphasizes "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die" and to simply work to live and not live to work because you've only got one life to live. It also fixes a bug in Schemer where users could set goals for time periods after they die. Shermer fixes this issue by permanently setting a users goal to "worm food" or "ashes" and set to the status "accomplished" after other users report the said user dead.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?