>best not to

Because? The obvious implication is you're saying Google will abuse their monopoly to hurt you if you upset them. Is that what you're implying? Or is it user trust, or something else you think is improved by avoiding such speculation?

▲

rgblambda 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I was actually just implying that it looks unprofessional. Say they cut an important security feature. Don't try to guess why.

▲

fwn 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It entirely depends on the strategy you try to implement through your communication.

That is generally true: prior to any professional communication you have a goal, assumptions, messaging, etc. Why would you produce communication at all, if you had not?

Marketing people often think there is a cookie-cutter rulebook you should follow, but there is not.

We are living in the "the bird is freed" and "nice genes" era of corporate communication.

▲

pbhjpbhj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well you clearly didn't realise what you did.

Oh, and I'm not going to tell you what it was, and 'don't try to guess'.

	▲	rgblambda an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not entirely sure what I "did". Given that I don't do comms for a serious open source project, mind letting me in on your secret?