Has Google Shut Down SMS Search?

hypnosec writes "Users in the US are reporting that Google has allegedly shut down its SMS Search service without any official announcement or notification. According to initial reports users are getting a 'SMS search has been shutdown' message. Navigating to the official Google Mobile website and clicking on SMS Search yields nothing but 404 – Page not found error."

Comments

Sucks

[skipkent]

Sucks since I don't have a data plan... But an (very short) explanation is here http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/websearch/yKG7BGro7QQ/ntAXQWWKj70J

Re:Sucks

[Albanach]

It's quite disappointing given they already abolished the Google 411 service. There are still plenty of folk without data plans, or who find themselves roaming where they have minutes and text messages but no data.

I understand Google's desire to move the world forward, but often these interfaces were useful, and sometimes they were they only interface available.

The idea that this is down to focusing on other products really doesn't wash. The products were both stable and likely taking almost no resources to maintain. If they did need anything to support them, I doubt it would be beyond the capability of an intern.

Re:Sucks

[hairyfeet]

I hate to say this but frankly its true...its Google, what did you or anybody else expect?

Its one of "those" rules, like how you don't buy a MSFT mobile product before the press has officially declared it a hit as MSFT pulls the plug quickly, in the same vein one doesn't use nor should care about any Google service that has less than 10 million users because with Google there really only is two states of a service, runaway hit or dying. There really seems to be no third state with them and it doesn't even matter if they are making enough in ads from a product that it isn't losing money, either its a smash hit and stays that way or its adios.

Its a damned shame and I felt sorry for those in the early days who didn't have this rule but by now it should be obvious that is just how things work at Google.

Re:Sucks

[uncqual]

Agreed.

Although, MSFT kept Bob longer than I expected - they should have killed it in utero.

Google's strategy makes sense if they really just want to be a advertising/search firm -- which may be enough to sustain them for many decades. However, every time they cancel a product that people were using and getting value from for years makes it more likely that people won't bother to try their new products and certainly won't let themselves become dependent on them. Although I liked a lot of stuff Google came out with over the years, now I tend not to bother to invest my energy in discovering or using them as I don't expect them to be around in two years.

I do use gmail, but only as a backup. I never was comfortable using it as my primary email address since it was perpetually in beta for so many years. Knowing what I know now, I probably would never have bothered to use gmail. I also use Android as it's fairly clear that when (not if) Google abandons that, there will be other entities that will pick up the slack.

Google is building up a reputation here. Maybe someday they will actually get a marketing department that understands that the latest thing from "Fart Around Fridays" shouldn't always be "released" unless they have good reason to believe that it's sustainably profitable by some metric and they are willing to sustain it even if they are wrong in their projections. Should they choose to do so someday, it will be hard for them to become "adults" given their reputation over many years.

Google's search capabilities are not all that much better than Bing's right now IMHO (both have strengths and weaknesses relative to the other). I think Google is a bit more vulnerable than most people seem to think - as any "one hit wonder" company is (yes, I'm talking about you Apple also -- although they are a 2½ hit company - iPod + iPhone + ½ iPad).

Re:Sucks

[swillden]

Maybe someday they will actually get a marketing department that understands that the latest thing from "Fart Around Fridays" shouldn't always be "released" unless they have good reason to believe that it's sustainably profitable by some metric and they are willing to sustain it even if they are wrong in their projections. Should they choose to do so someday, it will be hard for them to become "adults" given their reputation over many years.

Actually, I think that's what has happened, and it's what's caused Google to acquire the bad reputation you speak of. When Larry Page took over a couple of years back, he immediately started demanding more focus on "world-changing" projects (at Google success is measured more by impact than by dollars; the assumption is that if you have a big enough impact there will be a way to make it profitable), and cutting the long tail of projects that weren't getting enough usage.

In your terms, Google is becoming an "adult" company, which is why they've been gradually canceling all of the non-hits which were introduced during the "throw anything and see what sticks" era -- like SMS search, assuming it's actually been cancelled. Google still does (and I hope will continue to do) more ambitious, speculative stuff than any other company out there, but there is definitely much more focus on demonstrating first that a project is going to be successful (i.e. hundreds of millions of users) than there used to be.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but these are my own opinions, not official company positions.)

Re:Sucks

[Zontar The Mindless]

Last time I was in the States (about 18 months ago), I had 2G service only. This was in Florida. About 100 miles north of Orlando. Beside a lake. With a cell tower in clear view on the opposite shore.

Re:Sucks

[uncqual]

Good point.

If Google doesn't continue to create new public projects with a high subsequent cancellation rate, they probably can overcome the reputation. Speculative stuff is good, but it would be helpful if Google did a better job of "we are playing with this" (appealing to early adopters and geeks) vs. "we stand behind this" (appealing to the mass market) and carefully label projects as such and thoughtfully transition from "playing" to "stand behind". Just declaring everything "beta" forever wasn't terribly helpful.

The SMS search was not anything I ever used, but abandoning iGoogle (with plenty of notice!) disappoints me - it works, it seems like it should be very low overhead to maintain, and it does everything I need. I would think that Google could do a lot with knowing what I click on, what I have on my page, even when I click on stuff and monetize that, but I guess that wasn't in the cards.

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[udoschuermann]

There are two issues from the user's perspective when a free service is suddenly shutdown:

1. The free service has become an expectation and important part of their routine.
2. There is no way to plan for alternatives, if they even exist,

No, there is no legal obligation for Google to keep such a service running, but the least they could have done is give a few weeks or months of warning, maybe point out equivalent services (sms based), and thus offer people a way to migrate. Instead, they just dropped everyone on the floor and said, "Go sign up for a data plan <shrug>"

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[Dputiger]

"Why is it that folks still have issues when a "Free" service suddenly is removed?"

Because having a service yanked out from under you is annoying? Furthermore, your use of the word "free" is somewhat limited. Google makes money off of users. It monetizes your search traffic, your emails, and tracks your site visitation patterns. It monitors which ads you click on, which you don't, and how to best use that data to better sell more ads. It leverages its share of the search and web services market in a number of ways to support these endeavors.

When you become part of the Google ecosystem, you are agreeing to share data with them that is incontrovertibly *valuable*, even if they never put a value on it, and no money changes hands. So you're right. No such thing as a free lunch. But when I use Google services, I'm paying them with my own personal usage data -- and they're obviously quite happy to use that data in a great many ways to "enhance" product offerings.

I'm not arguing that Google SMS deserved to live, or that Google is morally or legally in the wrong for closing it, but Google is compensated with information when I use its products. It may not cost me any money, but if I give you something you find valuable in exchange for a good or service, there's still an exchange taking place.

Re:Love it!

[iggymanz]

also one will get downmodded for pointing out that google can legitimately yank its free services any time it pleases, there is no moral obligation for it to provide any thing for free or to notify anyone when such free services are cut off.

thankfully, with its biggest service, the normal search engine, the free users won't get dumped because they are not the customer but the product and as such are worth money

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[LurkerXXX]

They didn't have a monthly/yearly contract with you to buy your information. They decided to discontinue buying you. Tough.

Maybe you should try an arrangement with another company where you are the actual customer, rather than their product.

Re:grow up, you entitled shit

[Rene S. Hollan]

You are forgetting estoppel:

Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel] (emphasis mine).

A common example is a stream on private property that borders a road. If people have come to take water from the stream, even if the landowner povided a pipe on his own land to make it easy (that did not extend to the public property), then after some time, the landowner can not suddenly deny access to the water in that stream, whether by his pipe, or not. If he tried, a court would likely grant a public "easement by estoppel".

The same principle is used in divorce cases to ensure that a soon to be ex-wife received alimony so that she may live "in the manner to which she has become accustomed", even as alimony is granted less and less frequently in recognition of women's ability to independently earn income. (It is still granted in many cases when a wife has never worked, and her husband supported her: she often gets 50% of the community property (to which she contributed nothing financially) AND alimony.)

So, if a company provides a free service, that many have come to rely upon, for some significant time, it may very well be held to continue to provide that service, unless the nature of the free offering was made clear (e.g. reserving the right to discontinue it at any time).

Generally, estoppel applies to either real property easements, or income streams, or other tangible benefit, but I see no reason that it can not be applied to a service.

In this case, the court would weigh the time the service was offered, the reasonable expectations of the public regarding it, and the public harm if it were terminated against the costs of the company to continue to provide it for free.

Be warned, however, that public easements by estoppel, for even an essential thing like water, often only are granted if free access was provided for extended periods of time, say 25 or 50 years. Often this is codified in municipal bylaws, or state, or federal laws.

This is why one should ALWAYS be careful of "being nice": one may unwittingly create an obligation by estoppel to continue to do so.

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yes, it is annoying. So google should not annoy you? Are you some kind of special being? Do we have an obligation not to annoy Your Snootiness?

Even if it is true that google is making money off you, you should realize they will stop giving you service if and when they decide you are not making enough money.

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[icebraining]

Clearly you need more than a "fucking phone" if you want to use Google Search on it.

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

one year they decide which animals will be culled and the unlucky beast gets a bullet to the brain. this is what google is doing to the users of certain services.

No it isn't. Those cattle get sold for their meat and make a profit for the rancher. These users are no longer sources of profit for google. They aren't being culled, they are being starved to death - a death that doesn't help anyone, neither the rancher nor the cattle benefit.

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[Animats]

Why is it that folks still have issues when a "Free" service suddenly is removed?

Google today announced the end of its 'Google Docs' experiment. Chairman Eric Schmidt said "Hosting documents for free didn't generate revenue. We started that product line for tactical reasons. Microsoft tried to move into our search business with Bing, and we had to respond to that threat. Today, the only people using Bing are Internet Explorer users who don't know how to change the default search engine, Bing is no longer a threat to us. So we're exiting the "documents" business to focus on our primary business of search ads". In response to this announcement, Google (GOOG) stock jumped 6%.

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that folks still have issues when a "Free" service suddenly is removed?

With Google now there is starting to become a worrying pattern where they use their dominant search position and money press to launch free services that push competitors out of the market, and then start charge for it or close it down when the competitors are dead. As they did with Maps. This I have a bigger problem with than just the user annoyance caused by the disappearance of a free service.

Re:Killed because it wasn't a revenue generator

[HiThere]

Are you asserting that people shouldn't complain when they are annoyed? Because that's what it sounds like.

Sorry, but I believe that complaining when a company annoys you is a public service. It warns others. (Admittedly, it's gotten to the point where I expect Google to drop any free service without warning, but there are always people who need to be reminded.)

That said, Google also has a perfect right to drop any service that they aren't contractually obligated to maintain. But this doesn't imply that those they annoy when they do so shouldn't voice their complaints.

Re:The Google Plan...

[HiThere]

What competition was there for this service? I'd never heard of it, or anything like it, before. (I don't use SMS, so that's no be surprise.)

I think that when you get to step 2 you are talking about the wrong company. Google often, perhaps usually, doesn't have any competition for their minor projects. Sometimes the competition develops AFTER they show up. If there was prior competition for Picassa, for example, I never heard of it.

Re:grow up, you entitled shit

[uncqual]

she often gets 50% of the community property (to which she contributed nothing financially)

Umm.... maybe she raised the kids and took care of the house so her partner could focus on working and, had she not done that, her partner would have been unable to make as much money for the household? If she just sat around eating bon-bons and watching soap operas in a moo-moo, the partner was either okay with that or not smart enough to divorce her before "50% of community property" amounted to much.

Re:grow up, you entitled shit

[gl4ss]

she often gets 50% of the community property (to which she contributed nothing financially)

Umm.... maybe she raised the kids and took care of the house so her partner could focus on working and, had she not done that, her partner would have been unable to make as much money for the household? If she just sat around eating bon-bons and watching soap operas in a moo-moo, the partner was either okay with that or not smart enough to divorce her before "50% of community property" amounted to much.

...you do understand what financially means? in the scenario she contributed effort, not money.

Re:Over $300 per year

[tehcyder]

Seriously. All the people with their panties in a wad over this...you're not entitled

You must be an old person.

Anyone under 25 is entitled to EVERYTHING, they're entitled to it FOREVER and they're entitled to it for FREE.