Google Will Shut Down Google Hire In 2020 55
Google Hire is the latest Google service on the chopping block. The job application tracking system was launched two years ago "in an effort to simplify the hiring process, with a workflow that integrated things like searching for applicants, scheduling interviews, and providing feedback about potential hires into Google's G Suite," reports TechCrunch. "It was built mostly for small to medium sized businesses, with a price that ranged from $200 to $400 a month depending on how many G Suite licenses you needed." From the report: In an email to customers, Google says: "While Hire has been successful, we're focusing our resources on other products in the Google Cloud portfolio. We are deeply grateful to our customers, as well as the champions and advocates who have joined and supported us along the way."
On the upside: it's not getting the axe immediately. In fact, you can keep using it for over a full year; Google says it won't actually be shutdown until September 1st of 2020. Just don't expect any new features to be added. Google also notes that it intends to stop taking payment for the product in the meantime, saying in a support FAQ that customers will see no additional charges for Google Hire after their next billing cycle.
On the upside: it's not getting the axe immediately. In fact, you can keep using it for over a full year; Google says it won't actually be shutdown until September 1st of 2020. Just don't expect any new features to be added. Google also notes that it intends to stop taking payment for the product in the meantime, saying in a support FAQ that customers will see no additional charges for Google Hire after their next billing cycle.
And another one gone, and another one gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And another one gone, and another one gone (Score:4, Interesting)
They did pay for this product, by allowing Google to siphon off private and corporate data out of their "customers". My guess is that this product got the chop because it wasn't siphoning off enough - or private enough - data.
Re:And another one gone, and another one gone (Score:4, Informative)
This was a paid service under the paid service gsuite.
Re:And another one gone, and another one gone (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And another one gone, and another one gone (Score:4, Insightful)
From about 12\" above your comment (Normal views) "reports TechCrunch. \"It was built mostly for small to medium sized businesses, with a price that ranged from $200 to $400 a month depending on how many G Suite licenses you needed.\" "
In general as an organization you shouldn't rely on Googles Services. Including API's Programming Languages, and other services with perhaps the exception of Web Searching and Email.
Google has shown it really doesn't have much heart in maintenance mode, they want to be hip and trendy and make new stuff. Not try to keep their old stuff running, especially if the code is showing its age.
Part of the reason why at work we have to deal with clunky old "Enterprise" Applications, is the fact these solutions are maintained for the long term, and you could be running the same application for 20-30+ years. They may force some upgrades, that would move the architecture from VMS to Linux or Windows, Put on a new front end polish, Upgrade the database engine... But for the most part there is a lot of legacy code in these systems, that will need long term support and maintenance. Often such long term programs, go to the less glamorous East Coast Tech Companies, like IBM. Because this long term support doesn't need hip and trendy Brogrammers to think of the next new thing. But a team of seasoned professionals willing to take careful and well managed changes to a code base that has been used for generations.
Re: And another one gone, and another one gone (Score:1)
Google cancels something nobody ever knew exists (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing this is being cancelled because practically nobody is using it. This could be because the service is overpriced or does not solve any problems that anyone actually has. Or it might just be because nobody is even aware it exists. You'd think a company the size of Google would have a marketing department, but apparently not.
Re:Google cancels something nobody ever knew exist (Score:5, Insightful)
Or it is reasonably successful, but doesn't bring in the massive profits google wants.
A lot of these services bring in more than enough to keep a small company operating, but not enough to satisfy a large one like google.
Re:Google cancels something nobody ever knew exist (Score:4, Interesting)
Now you've got a lot of former customers that are going to seriously reconsider using Google going forward because there's no guarantee of long term product availability. If Google were bleeding money on this, then yes it makes sense to kill it, but not if it's actually profitable and doesn't eat up gobs of developer time that could be better spent elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's profitable, I'd leave it alone even if it doesn't make huge piles of money. Especially if it doesn't require much work or maintenance and the developers are free to work on other projects outside of small bugfixes and security patches.
You would, but that doesn't really make sense to Google, either from the perspective of the company's goals, or from a practical point of view.
Taking the second point first, it's hard to staff "stagnant" projects within Google. Employees have a lot of freedom to move teams, and there's an incentive to be working on stuff that demonstrates potential for promotion. Maintenance work can provide that promotion opportunity, but it's much harder to make the case than if you launch new features, or products.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add that something might be profitable on paper, but also comes with opportunity costs. These are both in the form of engineering (and other) resources, but also the potential that something relatively stagnant cannibalizes something else. Perhaps Google has another product in its wings that it thinks overlaps this? Perhaps this does overlap something else.
I've worked at large companies that have axes profitable projects, divisions, etc. just for these reasons. Profit is important, but if it
Re:Google cancels something nobody ever knew exist (Score:4, Interesting)
Companies will often kill off profitable projects, mostly so they can move their resources to more profitable projects.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to work for Google, and live the Google Life, also a lot of companies may offer similar type of benefits, without some of the trade-offs. This means Google workforce is limited. So even profitable projects may be sucking up resources which could be used better elsewhere.
If there are about 1k customers (a small number for google) they would be bringing in 200k-400k a month, which would be adequate to support a small team of developers, servers, maintenance, and still make a good profit. However if this team could be working on a project that will create 10k customers (assuming these customers are going to pay the same monthly) then Google will be bringing in 2-4 million a month.
Of course Google like to just turn off products, where they could had just possibly sold it to a small company to manage who would be more than happy to be bringing in 200k in revenue a month. One of the biggest problems with today's tech economy is there is high cost for entry to start a business.
Back in the 1990's
They were companies who made White Box PC's, Dial Up Internet, Custom Software Development, on site repair, stores that sold software and hardware... This were good business for a small business to run. With a rather low cost of entry. But with Mobile devices and thin laptops being more popular, not enough people wants Desktop PC Builds, High Speed Internet is usually bundled with the Telecom's infrastructure. Cloud Services means it harder to get into the custom software market, cheap hardware that is disposable makes repairs less attractive, and Amazon makes operating a store nearly impossible. Having big companies like Google, sell off services they don't want to manage could be a boom for the small business economy, giving a cheaper entry level for small businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to work for Google, and live the Google Life, also a lot of companies may offer similar type of benefits, without some of the trade-offs.
Out of curiosity, what do you perceive the "Google Life" to be, and what are the trade-offs you mention?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I’d guess the termination of Google Hire has more to do with how Bebop was only acquired as a way to hire Diane Greene to run Google Cloud. She’d since left, so no need to keep the rest around (primarily ex-VMware people who put together a website in today’s web 2.0 era using web 1.0 techniques).
Google: let me shoot my foot again (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs to tell them that when you get a reputation for consistently killing off your product offerings (and not just because they're unsuccessful), then you decrease the likelihood that people will adopt your future products.
I honestly don't see why any business would rely on any Google product these days.
Re: Google: let me shoot my foot again (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I can't wait to see where I rank
Checking your social credit score decreases your social credit score, just like your regular credit report...
Re: (Score:2)
Checking your social credit score decreases your social credit score, just like your regular credit report...
Huh? Checking your credit report/score has zero effect on your credit score. It might or might not (depending on the source) show up as a soft inquiry on your credit report, but soft inquiries are only visible to you anyway, so it has essentially zero effect on your credit report too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering their net worth, I'm guessing Google will keep doing what they do and forego the benefits of your insight.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering their net worth, I'm guessing Google will keep doing what they do and forego the benefits of your insight.
And this is a big reason why the average duration of a company being in the S&P 500 is less than 20 years. A company like Google, whose success is arguably due to one really great idea at the right time with a little luck, is probably not the type of company which should rest on its laurels.
Microsoft had to essentially re-invent themselves to become the success they are now. Balmer's 14 years at CEO saw Microsoft stock stay fairly constant over his entire tenure (technically the stock dropped over his t
Re: (Score:3)
Google had 2-4 great ideas, starting with search. Then advertisement, then gmail and you could make a strong case that google apps was very successful even though it built off of gmail and search. Pretty much everything else has been a failure or killed off by google. Android they purchased and have done well letting it live as a free OS but it doesn't bring them money in directly, just feeds into search and advertisements.
Balmer can be blamed for the dot com bubble as much as anyone. He let Windows stagnat
Re: (Score:2)
Android they purchased and have done well letting it live as a free OS but it doesn't bring them money in directly, just feeds into search and advertisements.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Android is fully funded and quite profitable from Play Store revenues. It also helps the search, and therefore ads, revenues as well, but I think the relationship there is actually the reverse: Android is helping Google's search and ads businesses remain relevant as users shift most of their computing to mobile platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't see why any business would rely on any Google product these days.
I don't think it's as bad as that, at least not if you're relying on paid services. In general, if you're betting a chunk of your business on a free service with no contract, you're taking a big, big risk. And on paid services, Google is both much less likely to shut them down and has a long track record of treating customers well when they wind a service down. For example, this case, where Google is giving customers a year of free service.
Great news (Score:1)
The real reason they're cancelling it (Score:2)
Due to excessive taxation and loss of income. in 2020. they are introducing:
Google Fire
why is Google shit at marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another announcement of a Google service being cancelled before I had ever heard of it. Why am I only hearing about Google services when they are being cancelled? Maybe if they were any good at advertising, I'd have heard of this before now.
The endless parade of cancelled Google services tells us many things.
1. Google is not as good at advertising as they think.
2. Google has zero ability to see a project through. They give up too easily, expecting everything to be an instant hit.
3. You're crazy if you depend on any Google service. I've lately been thinking that I should get my own mail server up again because how long can it be before they shut down gmail? If they decide it's unprofitable then down the disposal it goes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: why is Google shit at marketing? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are/Were you in the market for a personal hiring system?
A good marketing team normally will hit people who would be interested in buying the product.
The likes of Google Search, Google Maps, Gmail, Google Docs... Will normally appeal to the general population, so we all know about it.
I work in health care, so I get hit with Ads for Electronic Health Record Systems. While earlier in my career I was working in the Manufacturing Sector, so I got more Ads for CRM, and CAD systems.
Re: (Score:2)
They are ramping up... (Score:2)
.. to launch their new messaging system - Google Colon
Re: (Score:1)
Google Colon
Sounds like another name for Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
And the replacement is... (Score:2)
Resource Planning (Score:2)
Companies need to put people back into the process (Score:4, Insightful)
Resumes are difficult to parse well. Really, really, difficult. Applicants don't like to send in a resume and then fill out a form with all their resume details on it afterwards either though.
The solution is to put HR back to work. Have them read the resumes and contact the hiring managers with questions. If companies really want to employ fewer people in HR then there could be opportunity for third parties with relevant backgrounds to help out, but it should not go to an algorithm. We have a great population of people in this country who aren't getting the work they are best qualified for simply because their resumes and applications aren't getting handled correctly; it's a shame the companies with the jobs aren't capable of recognizing why this is.
Re: Companies need to put people back into the pro (Score:2)
As an applicant, hire a resume writing service. A good service will consider getting through the HR roadblock, no matter how stupid that seems. It's like hiring a lawyer; its just too tricky for a non-expert to do it themselves, despite how smart you might be otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
As an applicant, hire a resume writing service.
I've done that. I've brought my resume to professionals who look at it and come to the obvious conclusion - I'm well qualified for the jobs I'm looking at. The writers don't have access to the algorithms that the employers use so they can't do much to figure out why no human contact is coming from the companies.
A good service will consider getting through the HR roadblock
The way through isn't a better resume. The way through is to have an established contact with the hiring manager. Which leads to the question of why the hell do companies even accept resumes an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google what now? (Score:1)
I've been doing HR and hiring work and never even heard of this until now. Kind of have to blame Google for this service's failure.
Please observe a moment of silence (Score:2)
Please observe a moment of silence, as another product Killed By Google [killedbygoogle.com] goes to the Google Cemetery [gcemetery.co].
I can't hide this Great JOY GREG brought into me (Score:1)