He is not an ex Oracle PM. He’s an old time chrome engineer who switched to management, he said it himself on the thread.

But this kind of corporate robot attitude is common for Google. It’s always the same story with them: they deprecate some service, write a heartfelt message about how they are aware this might destroy some projects/businesses and how difficult it was for them to make this decision, but they’re gonna do it anyways. Thank you very much for doing business with Google, have a nice day.

I get that it's frustrating but I don't understand what the real issue here is, or how this relates to anti-trust as some other comments are suggesting. They are under no obligation to offer any further explanation for why they won't operate a free service forever. It's a business, you can safely assume the explanation is always "because money."

Don't blame Oracle for this. Page/Pichai sign off on these plans.

I highly doubt this decision went all the way up to Page or Pichai.

Ultimately the buck stops there, regardless of whether they were directly responsible.

If this happened it’s because they built or facilitated a culture that does these things.

I would be surprised if, given the antitrust sensitivity around chrome, these decisions aren't being approved at a very high level.

That would ruin their plausible deniability.

My experience from other organizations:

* Corruption runs to the top.

* The top is very careful to communicate verbally, through implications, or otherwise.

Dunno about Google.

They've already been sued! Lawsuits already claims that chrome, with eg 60% US marketshare, is used as a distribution channel for google!

Any plausible deniability they have had is gone, and lawyers are in the loop for all sorts of decisions now. Not least because having counsel on a thread can help prevent that discussion from being subpoenaed.