> we occasionally have the difficult choice to discontinue features that require disproportionate maintenance resources.
Am I really expected to believe that the billions of dollars the company makes in pure profit can't sustain this feature? Am I really expected to believe the touted productively gains granted by Google's AI can't sustain this feature?
The flip side of this is that GMail's Send-As feature has seen virtually no maintenance whatsoever. It's buggy-as and I expect most people (like myself) have been putting up with it out of inertia because switching email clients is a pain.
Keeping the good, bad, and evil aside for a moment, is it possible that the very reason this company makes billions consistently is because they ruthlessly (or stupidly as per "us") drop things they don't want to do, don't need to do, irrespective of whether we think those would have been profitable, or even very nice of them?
Am I really expected to believe that the billions of dollars the company makes in pure profit can't sustain this feature? Am I really expected to believe the touted productively gains granted by Google's AI can't sustain this feature?