> Google is the ONE company that you should want to invade a new market
Sorry, this is a bit over the top. Google did just that - invaded the RSS market when it was new, wiped out the RSS niche with a free product, and then suddenly had a change of heart, ditching everyone presumably to "focus" a few of its 54000 employees on the social buzzword of that year.
I don't see anything wrong with that. There are literally dozens of BETTER alternatives to Google Reader out there. Their work is done by with that space and they felt it was time to move on.
> Google is the ONE company that you should want to invade a new market
Bull Hockey. Google is the LAST company that I want to invade my market.
Google has gobs of cash that they can inject into a market to produce a mediocre service and provide it to users for free.
Anyone else competing in that market space now instantly loses any chance for profitability because why would someone pay for your service when Google gives it for free?
Time marches on, and everyone leaves that market space except Google. Google still calls the service "beta" while they try to figure out how to monetize it.
Then, since there's no real way that can monetize that service, they discontinue it, leaving users in the lurch (or at best, migrating them to some other Google service which they can monetize).
You can fanboy Google all you'd like, but they are NOT the benevolent Bringer of All The Interwebs at all times.
Sometimes, injecting stupid amounts of cash into a niche market doesn't always help that market out.
> Why exactly can’t Google try new things and then discontinue them if they don’t gain enough traction?
They can, and I don't think anyone is telling Google they can't. The sentiment I'm seeing is that developers and business owners are developing a sense that Google will do just that. It's the impact on the Google-user relationship that is suffering. What you've stated is the cause, not the effect.
> Why is trying new services out a bad thing?
For whom; Google, or the end-user? In the short term, it looks great for Google. "Hey, we've got piles of money and resources; let's just try everything!" This sucks for the end-user though, because we don't all have piles of money and resources lying around to cover switching costs.
When you bootstrap a start-up, you learn a very valuable skill set: do something with next-to-nothing. Google's offerings are often enticing, because they're low cost, and often free when they start out. Then the attention of those responsible for Google's bottom line begin to narrow in on the service, and the hard questions start coming. How will this service turn a profit? How will this service support our core offering? How much resources is this service consuming? Would those resources be better spent elsewhere?
Those are all perfectly valid questions for Google. From the entrepreneur's side of the table though, they're frightening as hell. What happens when you integrate these services in to your business plan, only to have Google shift their offering to make more sense for Google? The entrepreneur is already engaged in the fight of their life just trying to develop their product and acquire customers. The stability of the underlying services that drive their business becomes a significant factor in their success or failure.
> Are they supposed to be perfect?
No, of course not. However, it would be nice if Google chose to make a serious commitment to new products, rather than launching every product as a test/beta. Still, it's their choice, just like it's the entrepreneur's choice to avoid their "beta" products after having had the rug pulled out from under us in the past.
What is misguided is the assumption that Google provides a service. It is a company. I think we are seeing the result of the company saying "what's the business case for this" now.
Sorry, this is a bit over the top. Google did just that - invaded the RSS market when it was new, wiped out the RSS niche with a free product, and then suddenly had a change of heart, ditching everyone presumably to "focus" a few of its 54000 employees on the social buzzword of that year.