Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses

Google Confirms Shut Down of Schemer 170

Posted by samzenpus
from the end-of-the-line dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Confirms Shut Down of Schemer

Comments Filter:
  • Here we go again... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) *

    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: (Score:2, Informative)

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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by TWX (665546)
        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
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hairyfeet (841228)

      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 anymo

      • 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

        They did the shitting a long time ago. The difference is that instead of killing it, they decided to FORCE people to use it by consolidating all their other services around it.

        That won't work, and it doesn't work. I quit using most of the services that require Google+ membership. I quit commenting on YouTube. Etc. Rather than be coerced, to the extent I reasonably can I'm just abandoning their platform, and I will go with alternatives instead.

        Google thought they had us by the gonads. They were wrong.

      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        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 wonder how this compares to companies like South Korea's Samsung and Daewoo or Japan's Yamaha, or other Asian conglomerates. Those companies don't seem to have a problem having lots of different divisions, pro

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by hairyfeet (841228)

          I knew the Googleites would rush to downmod me but truth is truth and just look at their history the past year or two since Brin took over, its been house clearing of ANYTHING that doesn't "blow big" within a set period is trashed. And look at how they are practically bitchslapping us with G+, its gotten so bad I now have Pale Moon as my "YouTube browser" just so I won't have Google harping "But don'tcha wanna use your real name and tie into G+? Please? pretty please?" FUCK OF, if I say NO then i mean NO, q

          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            And to answer your question? The Asian corps value profits, both big AND relatively small, and so as long as a group isn't in the red? it'll tend to stay going.

            I guess that partly explains why Asia is taking over the global economy while the US is quickly going the way of the Roman Empire.

            • by hairyfeet (841228)

              Exactly, western corps don't see ANYTHING but being #1, if your product is #2, then its shit, its worthless, why aren't you #1?

              But as much as I hate those "its the gubmint!" posts I have to say that I truly believe in this case? Yeah, its the government. When Ronnie Raygun threw billions of taxpayer dollars into the stock market overnight [youtube.com] it turned the entire thing into "through the looking glass" where it no longer mattered if your company was doing well or not, all it matters now is it APPEARS to be hot e

        • by HiThere (15173)

          IIRC, at the time IBM sold the laptop division, the speculation was that this was to give them an entree into the China market, not because it wasn't profitable enough. (OTOH, if it had been extremely profitable, then IBM would definitely have held onto it more strongly.)

    • by fast turtle (1118037) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @09:11PM (#45935559) Journal

      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.

      • 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.

        If it's any consolation, I suspect quite a few people (myself included) wondered that when Schemer first launched in 2011. And never bothered to go back.

        [Just checked, yes I deleted my Schemer account.]

    • by Ravaldy (2621787)

      "Pure Corporate Evil"???

      Are you one of the care bears?

    • 'Cue the Google apologists' you mean.

  • Schemer? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hritcu (871613) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @04:39PM (#45933983) Homepage
    Google what?
  • Google Plus (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrEricSir (398214) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @04:40PM (#45933985) Homepage

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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+.
  • by QilessQi (2044624) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @04:44PM (#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?

    • by mysidia (191772)

      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 Goog

      • by QilessQi (2044624)

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

  • Where? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chompjil (2746865) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @04:45PM (#45934017)
    I never heard of thisbut now that I have it looks intresting
    • Re: Where? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 12, 2014 @05:25PM (#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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 12, 2014 @04:51PM (#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.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      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.

      • by coolmadsi (823103)

        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.

        I think I have heard of this once before, but it was saying how it sounds nice, but most of the stuff on it was just spam.

    • by Chemisor (97276)

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

    • by DTemp (1086779) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @05:51PM (#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.

    • 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.
    • by excelsior_gr (969383) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @06:18PM (#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.

    • by Swampash (1131503) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @06:19PM (#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.

      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        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".

        Actually, last I heard, Google was no longer doing the 20% thing. It seems like they've given up on the "what cool shit can we come up with?" tack, and now are trying to force more integrated services on everyone, which no one seems to want.

        • by AuMatar (183847)

          I was talking to a Google recruiter about a month ago. She was using 20% time as a selling point. Possibly its harder to get a 20% product released, but its not dead.

      • by gshegosh (1587463)
        I don't think they have just one monopoly product. Sure, search is huge. But what about Android. What about advertisement potential of data gathered through Analytics. What about Apps and App Engine? Or even the infamous Plus. They have numerous products that are quite successful and that not all of their products are like that? It's a good thing they're trying new ideas out.
        • by Swampash (1131503)

          Google doesn't make any money out of search. Google makes money out of ADVERTISING, that's its "one monopoly product that makes incredible money". Advertising is responsible for 96% of Google's revenue.

      • Unlike Microsoft in its salad days, Google doesn't have an anti-competive monopoly clause built into your hardware. You can buy a computing device without Google and still interact with the rest of the world. Comparing Google to Microsoft at this point is specious.

        • by kriston (7886)

          Naturally, but monitor how often that non-Google device interacts with Google services. You probably won't be feeling the same way.

          • by lwriemen (763666)

            Why? How is an application accessing Google services limiting my choices or affecting my productivity? Both were effects of the Microsoft monopoly.

      • Apple starts from "what do customers need?"

        I'll fix that for you:

        Apple starts from "what does Average Joe need?"

        There.

      • by knarf (34928)

        Apple? What do they have to do with this? Apple is a hardware vendor, Google only tangentially so. Google does advertising and web services, making most of its money on the former while spending it on the latter.

        In what way would Google 'fall behind' Apple? Google's products are mostly operating-system and hardware agnostic, running equally well (or poor) on all supported platforms. For Apple to change this they'd have to exclude Google from their products. They tried, and failed, miserably. They might try

      • > 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.

        Apple didn't hit top gear, it just engaged a retro rocket called Steve Jobs. Rocket is now spent, and Apple will slow to its usual coasting speed over the next few years. There's no reason to think Apple will perform at the same level from now on. The right-place-right-time market breakthroughs are over.

        Android will take over from here, becoming embedded in all kin

        • by Swampash (1131503)

          Android makes Google no money. The only company that makes good money if Android proliferates like crazy is Microsoft, since it gets royalties every time an Android device is sold.

          The only way Google can make money as a result of Android is to use it to monitor your behavior and show you advertisements.

  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @05:01PM (#45934105) Homepage

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 12, 2014 @05:06PM (#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.

    • by Grishnakh (216268)

      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.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      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.

    • by TWX (665546) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @05:48PM (#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?

    • by lgw (121541)

      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

    • 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.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      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.

      Unlikely. Most likely Google is simply preparing for the next generation of consumer products - robots. By buying up all the robotic companies, Google hopes to acquire a pile of patents that wa

    • I'm worried about Google buying all those robotics companies. Profitability in advanced robotics is probably 5-10 years away. [...] Google could destroy the US robotics industry.

      i've only read that they have purchased a single robotics company, Boston Dynamics. frankly, i would be happy to see their efforts disappear because their stuff is targeted for military application. just one of those bots would cost a shitload and no doubt money will be dumped into making better and better killing machines at the cost of many lives and billions of dollars. we may be set back years in development but it's a sacrifice worth making. unfortunately, this just means they will be pouring money

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

  • by ZDroid (2938715)
    Schemer is very interesting, but Google closes it, like Reader, just because it isn't ad-friendly. Oh, no.
  • by Urkki (668283) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @05:33PM (#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.

    • by lgw (121541)

      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.

  • ...After the average half-life of a Google product idea.
  • by BringsApples (3418089) on Sunday January 12, 2014 @07:33PM (#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?
  • If you like your goal-sharing service, you can keep your goal sharing service!

    Then 2014.

  • First time I've heard of this Google service and I use Google for almost everything web related.

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      I installed Schemer a month or two back, and uninstalled it today on news of it's impending demise.

      It was interesting, in that you could share "real-world achievements" with your social circles, but it was underpowered since it didn't have very good integration into G+ other than your circles. You could, for example, cross off the "Went to an NFL game in January" goal, and share it with others. Nothing special there, but seeing that someone else got their "Went hot air ballooning" goal might make you thin

  • This is yet another example of how 'business decisions' can cause a Cloud service you rely on to shut down for no technical reason, and without warning.  You can't rely on Cloud services unless you are running them yourself.  They are fun to play with, and can aid efficiency in the short term, but they must be regarded as fun, practical toys.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.

Working...