1. Google shuttering products because they're not profitable
2. Google adjusting product terms to ensure they can continue running it
Pick one.
2. Google adjusting product terms to ensure they can continue running it
Pick one.
This is made more extreme as many of the "products they shutter because they are not profitable" were never profitable. Such that, at this point, any market they "enter" with a free product is viewed as a bad faith burning of it.
The cynical take from that is that they can burn on non-profitable choices for far longer than your average competitor. Since, as you say, they can do this for a long time.
Note that this isn't really new, either. MS used to (still does?) give ridiculously reduced/free offerings to students, only to build an entrenched mindshare that "this is the way." Nor is this just MS. Fusion 360 recently made headlines by changing their "reduced" option. I recall for years it was open speculation that Adobe used to turn a massive blind eye to piracy, as long as it was growing the demand that shops have to use their product.
Now, I think a valid criticism of me on this, is that I don't have an alternative. I don't know how to really regulate the behavior I think should be the norm here. My pipe dream would be that they have to use open standards for data exchange. If you are trying to build a new foundation, it has to be one that either pays for itself, or has an exit that is not encumbered by vendor lockin.