Google's shortened links will stop working next year

https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/19/24201734/google-url-link-shortening-service-shut-down-support

by uladzislau • 2 years ago

133 65 2 years ago

ggm2• 2 years ago

Seems google doesn't care about pURLs

ingve• 2 years ago

Not sure if this is a general remonstrance about Google not caring about permanent URLs (pURLs) or a very specific reference: In Knitting for beginners, 3rd edition (Imagine Publishing, 2015), the basic knitting techniques have a link to accompanying video demonstrations on Youtube, and they used Google's link shortener. Of course they cover the purl stitch, but the pURL for the purl video will now be broken by Google. For anyone googling this in the future, here's the redirect:

goo.gl/Z64Spk -> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgkXzADBVZXtmB9zdaf2W...

ggm2• 2 years ago

Was generic but this quite specific example is very fine.

upon_drumhead2• 2 years ago

When Google announced in 2018 that it was shutting down goo.gl, the company encouraged developers to migrate to Firebase Dynamic Links (FDL) — which has also since been deprecated.

Why wouldn't they just change the backend and leave the service alive for the end users? It seems nuts to give up all that sweet sweet browsing data.

fodkodrasz• 2 years ago

THIS!

Seriously... if they retire it, make the backend read-only, that way it can be highly optimized, and ran with minimal costs (from a mammoth company's perspective).

I don't know, make it an interview question and deploy the best answer? They put more effort into tortuting aspirants than to EOL-ing some of their cheap-ass services in a reasonable way.

ajb• 2 years ago

In S3, you can implement this with a single bucket, no code at all: objects can cause redirects, using x-amz-website-redirect-location

Since Google buckets don't seem to implement this feature, maybe they should point goo.gl at S3 :-)

bdd8f1df777b• 2 years ago

The problem is that Google infra requires everything running to be new. There is a build horizon of 6 months. Everything built with code older than 6 months is not able to run on Borg. And since Google deprecates many internal infra tools/libraries routinely, a team is required to make sure the service remains up-to-date. Google doesn't want to pay for such maintenance.

j16sdiz• 2 years ago

Many years ago, there was an industrial group (?, maybe just a campaign.. can't remember the details) promised to provide protection/transfer service if one of their member shutdown.

Tried to search the news, can't find any reference to that.

jszymborski• 2 years ago

301works.org might be what you mean.

https://archive.org/details/301works

rawling• 2 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40998549

treve2• 2 years ago

Given how relatively easy it is to run a redirect service, and how many links this will break this is vandalism.

bhawks2• 2 years ago

For a company that couldn't have started itself without functioning hypertext media ecosystem it seems even more callous and destructive.

As a Xoogler I'm very disappointed

usr1106• 2 years ago

It's in Google's interest that coming generations will find any URL as weird as we find an IPv6 address. Everybody should use their search^W profit generation engine.

bhawks2• 2 years ago

Indexing and deeplinking into walled gardens is a pretty fragile affair.

Can search live without an open web?

silon42• 2 years ago

Is there a service to lookup and cache redirect service links?

mg• 2 years ago

Every time I change a ULR (or a set of URLs), I put a test for the redirect into my end-2-end tests, which run once per day. So I know all my URLs will work forever.

I have not thought about it for years now. Just checked for my first ever Show HN from 10 years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7465980

The URL has long changed, but the redirect still works. Phew :) So all seems to be good. Here's to the next 10 years!

Google should do the same. Set up a seperate server for the redirect service itself. And then I guess they have multi project end-2-end tests running somewhere in their infrastructure. Just add testing this service and thats it. Amount of work per year to keep it up should be less than an hour, right?

dockerd• 2 years ago

It will easily take 1-2 engineers to maintain it in Google.

Why 1-2 engineers? Security patches / Internal service deprecation / Migration / Use of deprecated dependency / etc

bikingbismuth• 2 years ago

The sad truth is that no one is getting a promotion to staff for just maintaining a service.

I wish this wasn’t so. At a previous job I had a VP tell me that my team was like a public utility and I took that as a compliment. Later my boss explained they were saying that they only noticed my team when something was broken. Sort of explained my lack of career progression in retrospect.

olliej• 2 years ago

Note that when Google made a blog post telling people to migrate from goo.gl to the also now deprecated Firebase Dynamic Links, the post states explicitly[1]:

"While most features of goo.gl will eventually sunset, [bold]all existing links will continue to redirect to the intended destination.[/bold]"

The [bold] section is bold in the original post.

[1] https://developers.googleblog.com/en/transitioning-google-ur...

sllabres• 2 years ago

That is sad, especially because I think that it is not a service that would take that much effort to keep up.

've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain...

sulandor• 2 years ago

"a candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long"

labster• 2 years ago

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

ehPReth• 2 years ago

it's so sad this multi-trillion dollar company can't spare some resources to serve a some 301s.

tabbott• 2 years ago

I wonder if there's a story here involving a URL shortener service having hidden costs? I can imagine there being something in the abuse space that makes it feel more expensive than just the hosting costs to operate.

hiddencost• 2 years ago

Google was killed by growing too large.

Google the company was designed with really high coordination requirements, which has made the marginal coordination cost of adding a new engineer higher than the value they add.

hnfong• 2 years ago

Probably career product managers finding it untenable to write self-reviews with such a low impact, low maintenance product...

And if nobody wants to take it on...

ChrisArchitect• 2 years ago

[dupe]

Discussion on official post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40998549

ambyra• 2 years ago

They could charge for custom video urls.

https://youtu.be/bestVideo1 for $1. I bet a lot of people would pay

sexy_seedbox• 2 years ago

They could also charge for premium, junk-free, search engine results competing with Kagi.

_xivi2• 2 years ago

The real reason is probably maintenance due to some hidden costs like conflicting infrastructure and they couldn't justify migrating it.

Related discussion (2 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40998549

Discussion of the previous announcement in 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719272

raverbashing2• 2 years ago

Honestly I bet they could have 2 interns porting the thing to Google App Engine and then migrate the database

A link shortener, as much as it has analytics and such in the background, is not rocket science.

_xivi2• 2 years ago

I bet they could have 2 interns porting the thing to Google App Engine and then migrate the database

How can you possibly have this assessment without looking at the code/infra?

There are many things that affect cost beyond the visible features. The project isn't in a vacuum. It's interlocked with their other services infrastructure.

You can judge Google however you want, but they're not stupid or amateurs. These types of announcements immensely damages their image and affect their customers, if they could avoid it easily as you imagine, why would they not?

They've built the service and run it for many years for billions of people. A more realistic guess would be that for whatever reason, the price is higher than what's visible on the surface and they're not willing to pay it.

Jyaif• 2 years ago

Having products scale through time is an engineering problem, and they seem to not be able to recognize it as so.

As long as they don't understand this, they won't be able to expand their product offering (and thus Revenue) significantly faster than their headcounts.

gorgoiler2• 2 years ago

It is an old code but it might be more appropriate to fess up and say the resource has been deleted?

410 “Gone” https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/410

But alas, even more apt:

417 “Expectation failed” https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/417

treve2• 2 years ago

Expectation failed is specifically a response to an unknown value for the Expect header.

gorgoiler2• 2 years ago

It was an ironic joke about the longevity of Google’s services :)

ycombinatrix2• 2 years ago

HTTP 421 might be appropriate

chris_wot• 2 years ago

Yup, yet another service people rely on being shut down. Don’t rely on Google.

np_tedious• 2 years ago

Are links generated from Google apps like

https://maps.app.goo.gl/xxxxxxx

going to continue working?

zuccs• 2 years ago

There is also `g.page` which they have suspended: https://support.google.com/business/answer/9273900?hl=en-GB

Havoc• 2 years ago

migrate to Firebase Dynamic Links (FDL)

The announcement of “we’re breaking your stuff” contains an appeal to trust them on next round?

They must think their clients are complete morons

nvalis• 2 years ago

https://firebase.google.com/support/dynamic-links-faq

qwertox• 2 years ago

For those not wanting to click the link:

On August 25th, 2025, Firebase Dynamic Links will shut down. All links served by Firebase Dynamic Links (both hosted on custom domains and page.link subdomains) will stop working and you will no longer be able to create new links.

agent327• 2 years ago

Is it possible to download the entire database? That way we could undo the breakage using a browser extension.

fragmede• 2 years ago

internet archive is on the case! run their warrior VM to help with the cause.

https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveTeam_Warrior

choose urlteam project

hcks• 2 years ago

Can someone mourning can me one single valuable link that will be lost?

beardyw2• 2 years ago

Maybe the links may direct to undesirable/illegal content either now or in the future. Perhaps just CYA.

beardyw2• 2 years ago

That said, I visit old discussions (5-10 years) regularly and most of the links are dead anyway.

Gud• 2 years ago

Yet another reminder to avoid the offerings of these mega corporations.

iJohnDoe• 2 years ago

Like many have said, its a shame they refuse to maintain minimal requirements to keep the links working.

Google offers cloud services. It’s like AWS saying they won’t spare some ec2 instances to keep some links working. If Google knew how to use their own cloud products then they could deploy some instances, failover, and monitoring and leave it alone, and also dogfood their own cloud products.

BigParm• 2 years ago

I host my own URL shortening service. It's 2 data columns in SQLite and a few lines of Javascript.

The reason I host my own is that specifically Google taught me not to trust the longevity of cloud hosted services. So I didn't trust tinyurl.com or whatever to be there in future. Ty Google for confirming the wisdom in that decision.

Google's shortened links will stop working next year

Related Stories