> Google made a big mistake cancelling Google Reader that will have severe ripple effects to its empire.
Oh come on: enough already. Obviously there was a /vocal/ user base which is very loudly now upset that the product is being sunset. Guess what, Google didn't see it as a large enough set of people to make it worth monetizing. Such is life. Move on. It's certainly not the end of Google if that's what this article is trying to imply. It isn't even the beginning of some horrible backlash either. It is however getting old.
I don't think people who use RSS realize what a small minority they are. I don't use RSS or Google Reader, I've never even seen it, but this week my Facebook has been filled by a tiny slice of my friends who are incredibly upset.
The vast majority are just shrugging and not caring one bit.
Only Google has the actual numbers on how many people are using their Reader, and they simply did the math. End of story. It's not going to affect Google one bit that they cancelled a tiny non-profitable product.
You missed the article's point, which was that the vocal users were power users, and influencers.
Several tens of thousands of highly influential people are now less likely to speak well of google, less likely to install chrome on a friend's computer, less likely to urge a parent to switch to gmail, etc.
I don't know how big the effect will be; less likely is a relative term. (this confuses people to no end) But the effect will be stronger than numbers alone indicate.
It is more a combination of the small and vocal user base and the message it sends to them about Google being open to cutting any product that has a usage they don't think is significant. Those people who see Google cut a product that they have adopted into a regular usage will probably add an asterisk to any recommendation for adopting a new Google product. There is no certainty that the lifespan of that Google is dedicated to that product. With the shutting down or Reader, it sends a clear message that almost no product of Google's is safe and that we should all be wary of what of theirs we adopt into daily usage.
Reading the commentary on this I feel like I'm only schlep in the tech industry that didn't use Google Reader. But then I ask my non-tech friends and guess what 90% of them say "Oh, I had some feeds on there from awhile back but I never really read them that often". I wonder if the people who used it are such trendsetters why that is the case ...
I think google has been killing reader for awhile now. Me, and several people in my social circle had been using reader heavily for a while, to the point where it was like crack to me. But Once G+ came along and they killed the social bit of reader, they pretty much killed reader itself, we all stopped using it, and now they just have to swing the final axe...
Google did the math, and they used the numbers. What everyone is saying is that numbers are useless without a model. Now, GReader caters to the needs of the 9% in the 90-9-1 rule[1], so you could never expect it to see huge numbers of adopters. Google did the math wrong, because they set the wrong expectation, based on a wrong popularity model, and they will indeed suffer.
I sympathize with Google Reader users. I find it occasionally tiresome to be half-foot in an ecosystem. But I've come to accept that this is just the way that Google does things.
I love Gmail/Calendar/Maps/DamnNearEverything. I love Groups, which they've recently taken pains to hide[1] so I suspect its up soon for the chopping block. Heck I even love Google+.
All that said, at least they had the gall to kill it. One thing that pains me more than killing a product they don't want is letting one languish broken for ages.
I'm fully in the G-cosystem[2] but sadly Google Finance is nearly worthless, and only edited about once a year, usually to break something and fix it a month later.
You can't switch to a current (non-closed) holdings view where it only shows you information about stocks you own right now, instead you have to make two portfolios. You can't reorder portfolios so my real portfolios and my "lookers" are separated in an awkward list. News stories are half spam and appear out of order anyway. Finance doesn't sync well with the Android app, sometimes it finds zero portfolios and makes me make temporary mobile ones that I have to delete later.
How many Java errors are on the Finance homepage today? Just one. How about on a stock ticker page? Thirty-one. And it's still using Flash.
I don't think the Reader backlash will hurt Google. There are just some products they plainly don't care about and will continue to ignore them until somebody brushes over the "shutter" button while the rest of the company shrugs.
> Groups isn't even on the extended products list in the Gmail header bar, though Reader is! You have to click "Even more" to get to Groups.
They have been really destroying Groups for a while now. The new ui is terrible, the new url format is also bad. They got rid of instructions for emailing for subscriptions, and someone reported to me earlier today that emailing [email protected] doesn't even work anymore.... are they just going to dump their usenet archives?
I really wish Github would fill the Groups niche because they would do it 100x better and most of the groups I'm in are coding related anyways. Especially if they really are trying to do collaboration in general...
Agreed about finance too. It's too bad it's so crappy.
I think it will hurt Google. Who use reader ? journalists , analysts , and they are pissed off. I dont recall such a huge reaction when other Google services shut down.
"Influencers" who liked Google Reader, now jilted, are going to use their magic influence beam to halt the growth of Android, to erode the dominance of Google in search, and prevent the regulatory approval of self-driving cars?
Google has quite a few heavy responsibilities on their hands. They have to manage growth and competition in hugely complex, emerging fields.
The lesson they learned correctly was that focus is essential. RSS is dead. A handful of nerds enjoy it, it solves a handful of problems, but it's not a hot technology around which you can build a business on the scale that will move needles for Google.
So they cut it and they're not even going to notice it in the rearview mirror.
In an amusing, if anecdotal, aside – Gina Trapani, an OG nerd influencer if ever there was one, tweeted that she'd checked out of Google Reader long ago.
Search, which provides the majority of Google's revenue, is precarious because there are very low costs for someone to switch to another service.
To combat this problem, Google started providing all these associated services -- Finance, Reader, Blogger, etc, etc -- so that people would begin to use their Google ID as a significant component of their online identity. These services were never supposed to be profitable, they were supposed to provide a competitive "moat" for search.
If people begin to take their data out of Google services -- which is the only rational response given Google's repeated and blatant disregard toward its "customers" -- these customers might start looking toward Bing and DDG very soon. Then Google will have a problem.
Even Android could have a problem if people begin asking the question, "what happens if/when Google sunsets Play? Will I still have access to my apps?"
What other technology is pervasively available to subscribe to discretized rich text articles, that will automatically fetch new entries, and maintain a history of viewed / favorited articles?
RSS serves a very critical function on the Internet - automated retrieval of content from dedicated sources picked by a user.
It was never a "platform" or a business model. It is syndication. The end. Everything from blogs, to videos, to art galleries, to music artists, benefit greatly from providing automated syndication to their content. So RSS will always have a place.
The point is that the 'influencers' will be aware of alternatives and are vocal about it. If you use a service of google's because there is another service of gooogle's that you use a lot - the tie is a lot looser, and when people are suggested alternatives it becomes a lot easier for them to move away.
While looking for a google reader alternative I ended up finding out about owncloud and now I use that to manage and sync my calendars and contacts across my devices, I also moved my domain email to zoho and infact the only service I am tied into of googles now is the android play store.
I used google apps for ages and had a free account before it got paid only (except that way of getting a 1 user apps account through some other google service) and I did that because it was so easy, and i reccomended it to anyone getting a domain.
That probably won't be the case any more.
So, I was in search of a new rss reader, and I had no intention of completely moving out of the google ecosystem, but I ended up finding a system that works better for me, and when people come to me (who come to me because 'i know tech' or whatever), and ask me what they should set up there new domain with, they will get a completely new answer.
This is just a personal story and i'm sure its not relevant to everyone but my point is that this move, and others, is damaging their brand and when you introduce people to RSS who have no idea what it is, and then you show them google reader and they love the fact they dont even need to make an account because they already have gmail, they love it. That is gone
I'm reading all these comments about "RSS is dead" and how everybody uses Facebook for it now and I'm completely confused. How you can even use Facebook for this? Facebook is totally useless as a reading list organizer, it is useful for sharing lolcats pictures, but if you need structure and organize known sources of information and keeping track of what you read and what you didn't - Facebook is as useful as a trombone in a Moon landing mission. The only conclusion I can make is that these people don't mean by reading the same thing as I do. Maybe for them lolcats and pics of each other's dinners is reading...
I don't see how Gina is a good example. She's been a Twitter fan for a long time. There's too much overlap with GReader, so it makes sense she would pick one over the other. That doesn't make RSS "dead".
Google's biggest risk from the press might be regulatory. Politicians and political appointees still pay close attention to the press, and Microsoft is always agitating in the background for an antitrust proceeding against Google. A pissed-off press corps might decide to "take a closer look" at the power Google wields in the online marketplace. This could help provide political cover to move against them.
Perhaps google learns a tough lesson. Or perhaps bloggers who think they are "influencers" are going to learn a tough lesson about how much impact their influence really has.
Google knows what they're doing. They haven't forgotten the outrage that happened after they stripped the social features out of reader and replaced it with the +1 button. They knew all those people and more would be pissed. And they decided it didn't matter.
It's not the same thing. When G+ killed Google Reader's "sharebro" social network, Google Reader still was the best feed reader of the market by a long shot. Just like now, there was nowhere to run. Heck, I kept using it, just like anyone complaining. I kept recommending it because it was GReader or a fucking magazine-layout shitty app.
But now they are definetely killing it, and it will affect the users in a different way. They are trashing away the app so there's no way a user can simply adapt. Before you could say "well, at least I can keep reading the feeds". Now you got nothing.
About influencers, well, there are lots of people with a good chunk of influence using GReader. They might make a dent on how people perceive Google's app reliability. Even a small one could end up in some financial loss. If it would be significant to them, only time will tell.
By the way, have you noticed that the Google+ still didn't catch up? What if it's Google Reader users fault? Think about it.
>Third, and lastly, Google is sending a strong signal to the market that it will have no mercy of killing whatever product it doesn’t think it’s going well.
Yep. I was just investigating Cloud SQL storage today and Google has a free Cloud SQL trial plan and decent pricing. I passed it over because I am concerned Google isn't interested in long term maintenance of products, and their support is non-existent. I'd rather go with some no-name startup that probably cares a lot more about my business.
[Disclaimer: I work at Google in an unrelated area]
Google platforms like Cloud SQL generally have a deprecation policy that will give you an idea of the minimum length of time that they'll be maintained. For Cloud SQL it's 1 year (it's in the Terms of Service), which means that you'd get at least a year's notice before it could be turned off. It's on par or slightly better than what I know of Amazon's policy (they have 1 year deprecation on their APIs and an undefined deprecation policy on their service offerings).
In my opnion having this deprecation policy would make Google Cloud SQL a lower risk proposition than a 'no-name startup', at least until the startup is in a position to make similar guarantees (and the financial resources to stick to those guarantees).
Edit: I guess my point is that some Google products have service agreements as to how long they'll be maintained and so comparing consumer web services to Cloud SQL isn't really appropriate.
This just shows Google just doesn't get design. Sure, they may have figured out CSS3 and made Gmail super hard to use, but they don't really get design.
Ever noticed how Facebook kills a feature? Slow, steady, they drift you away, showing you by hand what better is out there, and then the feature disappears, first from our conscious, and then from the website. If FB was the one calling shots here, they probably would have somehow merged G+ and Reader, and then slowly started to show us those stories better using Currents, and by the time everyone is comfortable, would have killed Reader.
Google doesn't get design. It has to be in everything. Even in killing products off, there is design. You can't design with a corporate sledgehammer. All they seem to be doing is kill off established niche products in hopes of somehow making a niche social network successful. If only someone builds a better search engine, right this moment.
RSS was a literal life changer when I first discovered it. Instead of going to the 5-10 websites I frequented to look for new stories throughout the day, I could check my reader when I took a break and stay up to date on everything. It probably cut my surfing time by 90% or more.
Additionally RSS allows me to follow far more things than would normally be possible. Instead of 10 I have 100, including things that don't update even every month.
Previously the discussion was always about how to make RSS usable for the masses, but I suppose this problem was never solved. Social media seems to work for some people, but it isn't the same. I can only count a handful of times in the last decade that I site I was interested in didn't have an RSS feed. It is practically universal. Facebook does indeed have a lot of people, but there is also the constant friend spam, and the algorithmic filtering to worry about.
When I look at the alternatives to Google Reader, it is clear that many of them don't get me. They are focused on content discovery, but i want to do is Keep Track. I don't want to miss a word from my favorite sources, and I need my reader to hold on to their words until I get to them.
I really hope RSS doesn't die. It is my handle on the internet, and without it I would still be refreshing sites all day.
It was a change of life for me too. But a bad one. Instead of checking my favorite websites separately I started checking a hundred websites.
I would eat information. I would get a new post every 30 seconds. I would spend my days just sitting at my desk and archiving what didn't seem of interest and read the rest.
After a few month I started realizing I wasn't enjoying what was written anymore. I wasn't enjoying visiting a website, its design, its UI (And I know the saying, we're not supposed to learn a new UI every time we browse a new website, but I like seeing a websites renovating its design, I like reading an article in its real environment )...
I decided to ditch it. I didn't need the technology. Nobody needed the technology. I didn't mind opening multiple tabs to check different websites.
I use bookmarks, multi row toolbar and tree style tab on Firefox and it's all I need for my big consumption. And I'm a power user. So imagine the normal users, why would they care about Google Reader?
This was my second thought when Google announced that they were retiring Reader (the first was "Nooo!")
Half of my friends use Gmail because I suggested that they switch. I am starting to see Google move toward the dark side, and that means you won't see me recommending Google products to friends. It'll take a while, but there will be backlash... because I'm not the only one in this boat.
I love Marcello and am a fan, but this is an emotional, not well thought through reaction.
The best leaders, the best organizations, the ones that create excellence, are those that are as good at saying no as they are at saying yes.
I've worked at a large company. It is easy for outsiders to think "oh, they have infinite resources and can do anything". This is not the case at all.
I am not much of a Google fan. I dropped Reader about 2 years ago and have used NewsBlur since. The only Google product I like is Chrome.
Google will continue to be successful, not by doing a bazillion little things poorly, but a few things, really, really well.
And to do a few things, really, really well, you have to be excellent at saying no. Google has decided Reader is a little thing it could not do really, really, well. So it is saying no.
I applaud that. (Even if it's caused NewsBlur to become almost too slow to use).
I love the idea of loss-leaders aimed at a specific, influential segment of the entire market. I'd never really thought of services like that.
I'm curious what uses there are for this specific type of loss-leader (as in not the Dropbox freemium type). Ethics aside, for instance, Google could have tried to steer conversation among an influential group toward certain topics, by more aggressively suggesting certain Google blogs to follow, or specific stories relevant to Google.
I'm also very curious what other such loss-leading services exist. One example is this forum. It advertises to potential founders with the small banner ad at the upper-left-hand corner of the screen. It also provides an ecosystem for the discussions about and (indirect) promotions of organizations or ideas YC invests in (like Watsi, or job postings).
The other example I can think of is "high-brow" political magazines like The National Review. Often, parties dedicated time and money on promoting ideas there, even though it's a very small segment of the entire market of voters.
Has anyone here designed a service or product with this specific aim in mind? How did you use it to further some broader agenda?
Microsoft's vulnerable among college students in computer/IT fields, because they have technical knowledge, lots of time on their hands and little money -- a perfect audience for FOSS.
So they offer big academic discounts to try to keep them in the Microsoft ecosystem.
I love how the closure of Reader reveals something about the tech journalists and "celebrities".
They throw tantrums. They throws hissy fits. They scream bloody murder. They divine doom and gloom for Google about how severely this will affect it in much more important markets like Android and Chrome.
And yet the world is not ending, and not every Facebook wall has this petition [1] plastered all over. Even GOOG stock underwent as a much as a correction, still hovering comfortably above $800.
What did happen, though, is that self-important "opinion leaders" had their illusions of power dispelled. No wonder they are furious.
I'm unconvinced Google is about to learn anything because this isn't the first time they have killed a product with a large following. It seems now if a product doesn't generate at least 100 million, it isn't safe from being discontinued. So YouTube, will continue to live alongside Search, but it looks like Picassa is on its way to be rebranded "Google+Pictures"
Instead it looks like everyone else is going to learn tough lesson - Google isn't a charity, and anything that doesn't provide them any strategic value and/or revenue can be discontinued.
Look, the TFA is full of crap. Here is the reality: today I would have a hard time coming up with a better alternative for a free productivity suite and search engine for most individuals and small to medium enterprises. When I am talking to someone looking to run things under their own domain, they might ask "do you think Google is going to discontinue support for Apps/GMail/Docs/Drive/etc?" To which I would have to reply "very unlikely". I think the OP overestimates the influence of the people that used GR. Sure, some had pull but the pragmatic ones can see the difference between Google's flagship products and GR.
There are plenty of reasons to not buy into the Google Ecosystem, but this is not one of them. Then again, all we need to do is wait a few months and see if the earnings report supports the OP's claim or Google's strategy. My money is ong Google.
Similar to the lesson(s) they learned after shutting down Google Code Search, Google Buzz, Jaiku, Google Health or any of the others? You just happened to like a product that was an overall failure. It happens.
Twitter and Facebook killed RSS. It's a far friendlier interface for people to keep up with news and people they find interesting. Geeks may be lamenting the loss of Google Reader, but they make up a very small percentage of the internet population these days. When I suggest that Twitter/Facebook is the new RSS I often catch a lot of flack for it, but honestly, that's how far more people consume information than any other service.
I can't subscribe to <insert-generic-Wordpress-blog-here> with Twitter/Facebook. With RSS, content authors only have to update their websites and not worry about crossposting to a social feed.
> When I suggest that Twitter/Facebook is the new RSS
please explain how twitter and facebook are open protocols so i can suscribe facebook or twitter feeds on the long run without my facebook/twitter reader client breaking because of changes in the api or without having to create an account on their plateform.
RSS exists because it allows free flow of information. I dont recall facebook or twitter being open plateforms that promote interoperability.
Parts of this post are premised the "influencer" marketing model, but there is at least some research indicating that it might not be as powerful as generally assumed. For example:
If Google is shutting down reader, are they going to remove RSS feeds from Blogger? What about Feedburner?
I think Google's better move would have been cut a few features and 'Plus-ify' Reader - kinda like they have been doing with their other products. They would have evolved an important user base, shown commitment to the RSS standard, and kept a number of important apps using their api's.
Aren't they after all supposed to be championing the open web?
I don't think this is intentional, but it now hard to argue againsT people saying that they intentionally waited till they killed the RSS readers market and then shut down their product.
What are "influencers" going to do about it? Give Reader a bad review? Complain about the death of a product no one knew existed? I don't see how they have any leverage in this situation. The comparison with Microsoft's Word Count incident seems weakly relevant.
>> What are "influencers" going to do about it? Give Reader a bad review?
No, but you may start seeing instances of phrases like "I wonder how long it will be until FeatureX/ProductY gets the boot like Reader did" or "Perhaps this product will languish for years without innovation like Reader" or "Maybe Google will opt to ignore users of this product too" in the press related to Google products. Next time Google kills a product, the media will reflect about how it's "just as bad as what they did with Reader in 2013." Killing widely used products is now something Google does; it is a behavior they are now strongly associated with.
In terms of influencers, it's not about the individual product, it's about the behavior of the company that operated it. Don't piss off the people that give you free advertising by taking out features they like, even if they're the only ones who use them.
>> a product no one knew existed
While I find that a stretch, the point the article was making is that no one needs to know of the existence of Reader for this to have a negative impact on Google. Except for the influencers, who did.
Well, I've been a strong promoter of Google's products over the years; I recommend them to others, show people how to use them, use them for project organization (thus pushing my usage pattern out to the rest of a team) and so on. I'm not about to suddenly stop doing that, but I feel an awful less invested than I did 48 hours ago.
View Google at a new light, not give them the benefit of a doubt. If Google does something, they'll try to see what's the catch. Google has gotten a lot of good, free press
And as everyone knows the word count tool initiated the downfall of microsoft word empire. Seriously, I don't think it was a bad decision to kill the reader. Not a nice one, but I think certainly not one where Google is going to learn a lesson about.
That wasn't quite the point -- it was that the influencers cared about the word-count tool. (You might also notice that Word currently has a word-count tool.)
[+] [-] llambda|13 years ago|reply
Oh come on: enough already. Obviously there was a /vocal/ user base which is very loudly now upset that the product is being sunset. Guess what, Google didn't see it as a large enough set of people to make it worth monetizing. Such is life. Move on. It's certainly not the end of Google if that's what this article is trying to imply. It isn't even the beginning of some horrible backlash either. It is however getting old.
[+] [-] henrikschroder|13 years ago|reply
The vast majority are just shrugging and not caring one bit.
Only Google has the actual numbers on how many people are using their Reader, and they simply did the math. End of story. It's not going to affect Google one bit that they cancelled a tiny non-profitable product.
[+] [-] graeme|13 years ago|reply
Several tens of thousands of highly influential people are now less likely to speak well of google, less likely to install chrome on a friend's computer, less likely to urge a parent to switch to gmail, etc.
I don't know how big the effect will be; less likely is a relative term. (this confuses people to no end) But the effect will be stronger than numbers alone indicate.
[+] [-] jdost|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] efuquen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImprovedSilence|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiosgc|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%2...
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
etc.
[+] [-] simonsarris|13 years ago|reply
I love Gmail/Calendar/Maps/DamnNearEverything. I love Groups, which they've recently taken pains to hide[1] so I suspect its up soon for the chopping block. Heck I even love Google+.
All that said, at least they had the gall to kill it. One thing that pains me more than killing a product they don't want is letting one languish broken for ages.
I'm fully in the G-cosystem[2] but sadly Google Finance is nearly worthless, and only edited about once a year, usually to break something and fix it a month later.
You can't switch to a current (non-closed) holdings view where it only shows you information about stocks you own right now, instead you have to make two portfolios. You can't reorder portfolios so my real portfolios and my "lookers" are separated in an awkward list. News stories are half spam and appear out of order anyway. Finance doesn't sync well with the Android app, sometimes it finds zero portfolios and makes me make temporary mobile ones that I have to delete later.
How many Java errors are on the Finance homepage today? Just one. How about on a stock ticker page? Thirty-one. And it's still using Flash.
I don't think the Reader backlash will hurt Google. There are just some products they plainly don't care about and will continue to ignore them until somebody brushes over the "shutter" button while the rest of the company shrugs.
~~~
[1] http://i.imgur.com/bs7i5pL.png
Groups isn't even on the extended products list in the Gmail header bar, though Reader is! You have to click "Even more" to get to Groups.
[2] I cringed writing that but it was too good to let go.
[+] [-] kanzure|13 years ago|reply
They have been really destroying Groups for a while now. The new ui is terrible, the new url format is also bad. They got rid of instructions for emailing for subscriptions, and someone reported to me earlier today that emailing [email protected] doesn't even work anymore.... are they just going to dump their usenet archives?
[+] [-] ianstormtaylor|13 years ago|reply
Agreed about finance too. It's too bad it's so crappy.
[+] [-] camus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danilocampos|13 years ago|reply
"Influencers" who liked Google Reader, now jilted, are going to use their magic influence beam to halt the growth of Android, to erode the dominance of Google in search, and prevent the regulatory approval of self-driving cars?
Google has quite a few heavy responsibilities on their hands. They have to manage growth and competition in hugely complex, emerging fields.
The lesson they learned correctly was that focus is essential. RSS is dead. A handful of nerds enjoy it, it solves a handful of problems, but it's not a hot technology around which you can build a business on the scale that will move needles for Google.
So they cut it and they're not even going to notice it in the rearview mirror.
In an amusing, if anecdotal, aside – Gina Trapani, an OG nerd influencer if ever there was one, tweeted that she'd checked out of Google Reader long ago.
https://twitter.com/ginatrapani/status/312451705692385280
[+] [-] xaa|13 years ago|reply
To combat this problem, Google started providing all these associated services -- Finance, Reader, Blogger, etc, etc -- so that people would begin to use their Google ID as a significant component of their online identity. These services were never supposed to be profitable, they were supposed to provide a competitive "moat" for search.
If people begin to take their data out of Google services -- which is the only rational response given Google's repeated and blatant disregard toward its "customers" -- these customers might start looking toward Bing and DDG very soon. Then Google will have a problem.
Even Android could have a problem if people begin asking the question, "what happens if/when Google sunsets Play? Will I still have access to my apps?"
[+] [-] zanny|13 years ago|reply
What other technology is pervasively available to subscribe to discretized rich text articles, that will automatically fetch new entries, and maintain a history of viewed / favorited articles?
RSS serves a very critical function on the Internet - automated retrieval of content from dedicated sources picked by a user.
It was never a "platform" or a business model. It is syndication. The end. Everything from blogs, to videos, to art galleries, to music artists, benefit greatly from providing automated syndication to their content. So RSS will always have a place.
[+] [-] oliverhunt|13 years ago|reply
While looking for a google reader alternative I ended up finding out about owncloud and now I use that to manage and sync my calendars and contacts across my devices, I also moved my domain email to zoho and infact the only service I am tied into of googles now is the android play store.
I used google apps for ages and had a free account before it got paid only (except that way of getting a 1 user apps account through some other google service) and I did that because it was so easy, and i reccomended it to anyone getting a domain.
That probably won't be the case any more.
So, I was in search of a new rss reader, and I had no intention of completely moving out of the google ecosystem, but I ended up finding a system that works better for me, and when people come to me (who come to me because 'i know tech' or whatever), and ask me what they should set up there new domain with, they will get a completely new answer.
This is just a personal story and i'm sure its not relevant to everyone but my point is that this move, and others, is damaging their brand and when you introduce people to RSS who have no idea what it is, and then you show them google reader and they love the fact they dont even need to make an account because they already have gmail, they love it. That is gone
Maybe my point is better illustrated by this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5383495
[+] [-] smsm42|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SquareWheel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notatoad|13 years ago|reply
Google knows what they're doing. They haven't forgotten the outrage that happened after they stripped the social features out of reader and replaced it with the +1 button. They knew all those people and more would be pissed. And they decided it didn't matter.
[+] [-] alenonimo|13 years ago|reply
But now they are definetely killing it, and it will affect the users in a different way. They are trashing away the app so there's no way a user can simply adapt. Before you could say "well, at least I can keep reading the feeds". Now you got nothing.
About influencers, well, there are lots of people with a good chunk of influence using GReader. They might make a dent on how people perceive Google's app reliability. Even a small one could end up in some financial loss. If it would be significant to them, only time will tell.
By the way, have you noticed that the Google+ still didn't catch up? What if it's Google Reader users fault? Think about it.
[+] [-] crander|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Afforess|13 years ago|reply
Yep. I was just investigating Cloud SQL storage today and Google has a free Cloud SQL trial plan and decent pricing. I passed it over because I am concerned Google isn't interested in long term maintenance of products, and their support is non-existent. I'd rather go with some no-name startup that probably cares a lot more about my business.
https://cloud.google.com/pricing/cloud-sql
[+] [-] arkem|13 years ago|reply
Google platforms like Cloud SQL generally have a deprecation policy that will give you an idea of the minimum length of time that they'll be maintained. For Cloud SQL it's 1 year (it's in the Terms of Service), which means that you'd get at least a year's notice before it could be turned off. It's on par or slightly better than what I know of Amazon's policy (they have 1 year deprecation on their APIs and an undefined deprecation policy on their service offerings).
In my opnion having this deprecation policy would make Google Cloud SQL a lower risk proposition than a 'no-name startup', at least until the startup is in a position to make similar guarantees (and the financial resources to stick to those guarantees).
Edit: I guess my point is that some Google products have service agreements as to how long they'll be maintained and so comparing consumer web services to Cloud SQL isn't really appropriate.
[+] [-] arihant|13 years ago|reply
Ever noticed how Facebook kills a feature? Slow, steady, they drift you away, showing you by hand what better is out there, and then the feature disappears, first from our conscious, and then from the website. If FB was the one calling shots here, they probably would have somehow merged G+ and Reader, and then slowly started to show us those stories better using Currents, and by the time everyone is comfortable, would have killed Reader.
Google doesn't get design. It has to be in everything. Even in killing products off, there is design. You can't design with a corporate sledgehammer. All they seem to be doing is kill off established niche products in hopes of somehow making a niche social network successful. If only someone builds a better search engine, right this moment.
[+] [-] samspot|13 years ago|reply
Additionally RSS allows me to follow far more things than would normally be possible. Instead of 10 I have 100, including things that don't update even every month.
Previously the discussion was always about how to make RSS usable for the masses, but I suppose this problem was never solved. Social media seems to work for some people, but it isn't the same. I can only count a handful of times in the last decade that I site I was interested in didn't have an RSS feed. It is practically universal. Facebook does indeed have a lot of people, but there is also the constant friend spam, and the algorithmic filtering to worry about.
When I look at the alternatives to Google Reader, it is clear that many of them don't get me. They are focused on content discovery, but i want to do is Keep Track. I don't want to miss a word from my favorite sources, and I need my reader to hold on to their words until I get to them.
I really hope RSS doesn't die. It is my handle on the internet, and without it I would still be refreshing sites all day.
[+] [-] baby|13 years ago|reply
I would eat information. I would get a new post every 30 seconds. I would spend my days just sitting at my desk and archiving what didn't seem of interest and read the rest.
After a few month I started realizing I wasn't enjoying what was written anymore. I wasn't enjoying visiting a website, its design, its UI (And I know the saying, we're not supposed to learn a new UI every time we browse a new website, but I like seeing a websites renovating its design, I like reading an article in its real environment )...
I decided to ditch it. I didn't need the technology. Nobody needed the technology. I didn't mind opening multiple tabs to check different websites.
I use bookmarks, multi row toolbar and tree style tab on Firefox and it's all I need for my big consumption. And I'm a power user. So imagine the normal users, why would they care about Google Reader?
[+] [-] Mindless2112|13 years ago|reply
Half of my friends use Gmail because I suggested that they switch. I am starting to see Google move toward the dark side, and that means you won't see me recommending Google products to friends. It'll take a while, but there will be backlash... because I'm not the only one in this boat.
[+] [-] cek|13 years ago|reply
The best leaders, the best organizations, the ones that create excellence, are those that are as good at saying no as they are at saying yes.
I've worked at a large company. It is easy for outsiders to think "oh, they have infinite resources and can do anything". This is not the case at all.
I am not much of a Google fan. I dropped Reader about 2 years ago and have used NewsBlur since. The only Google product I like is Chrome.
Google will continue to be successful, not by doing a bazillion little things poorly, but a few things, really, really well.
And to do a few things, really, really well, you have to be excellent at saying no. Google has decided Reader is a little thing it could not do really, really, well. So it is saying no.
I applaud that. (Even if it's caused NewsBlur to become almost too slow to use).
[+] [-] kevinalexbrown|13 years ago|reply
I'm curious what uses there are for this specific type of loss-leader (as in not the Dropbox freemium type). Ethics aside, for instance, Google could have tried to steer conversation among an influential group toward certain topics, by more aggressively suggesting certain Google blogs to follow, or specific stories relevant to Google.
I'm also very curious what other such loss-leading services exist. One example is this forum. It advertises to potential founders with the small banner ad at the upper-left-hand corner of the screen. It also provides an ecosystem for the discussions about and (indirect) promotions of organizations or ideas YC invests in (like Watsi, or job postings).
The other example I can think of is "high-brow" political magazines like The National Review. Often, parties dedicated time and money on promoting ideas there, even though it's a very small segment of the entire market of voters.
Has anyone here designed a service or product with this specific aim in mind? How did you use it to further some broader agenda?
[+] [-] csense|13 years ago|reply
So they offer big academic discounts to try to keep them in the Microsoft ecosystem.
[+] [-] Xion|13 years ago|reply
They throw tantrums. They throws hissy fits. They scream bloody murder. They divine doom and gloom for Google about how severely this will affect it in much more important markets like Android and Chrome.
And yet the world is not ending, and not every Facebook wall has this petition [1] plastered all over. Even GOOG stock underwent as a much as a correction, still hovering comfortably above $800.
What did happen, though, is that self-important "opinion leaders" had their illusions of power dispelled. No wonder they are furious.
[1] https://www.change.org/petitions/google-keep-google-reader-r...
[+] [-] nemothekid|13 years ago|reply
Instead it looks like everyone else is going to learn tough lesson - Google isn't a charity, and anything that doesn't provide them any strategic value and/or revenue can be discontinued.
[+] [-] IgorPartola|13 years ago|reply
There are plenty of reasons to not buy into the Google Ecosystem, but this is not one of them. Then again, all we need to do is wait a few months and see if the earnings report supports the OP's claim or Google's strategy. My money is ong Google.
[+] [-] jonknee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] illicium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
A preference for having things automatically sorted into neat categories may not be as unusual as you think.
[+] [-] camus|13 years ago|reply
please explain how twitter and facebook are open protocols so i can suscribe facebook or twitter feeds on the long run without my facebook/twitter reader client breaking because of changes in the api or without having to create an account on their plateform.
RSS exists because it allows free flow of information. I dont recall facebook or twitter being open plateforms that promote interoperability.
[+] [-] gfodor|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carbon8|13 years ago|reply
* http://misc.si.umich.edu/media/papers/wsdm333w-bakshy.pdf
* http://www.digitaltonto.com/wp-content/uploads/WattsandDoddi...
"Grouped: How small groups of friends are the key to influence on the social web," the book by Paul Adams @ Facebook (http://www.amazon.com/Grouped-groups-friends-influence-socia...), talks a bit about this.
Anecdotally, I've also seen quite a bit of evidence first hand that suggests the impact of influencers is not clear-cut.
[+] [-] vineet|13 years ago|reply
I think Google's better move would have been cut a few features and 'Plus-ify' Reader - kinda like they have been doing with their other products. They would have evolved an important user base, shown commitment to the RSS standard, and kept a number of important apps using their api's.
Aren't they after all supposed to be championing the open web?
I don't think this is intentional, but it now hard to argue againsT people saying that they intentionally waited till they killed the RSS readers market and then shut down their product.
[+] [-] camus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nlawalker|13 years ago|reply
No, but you may start seeing instances of phrases like "I wonder how long it will be until FeatureX/ProductY gets the boot like Reader did" or "Perhaps this product will languish for years without innovation like Reader" or "Maybe Google will opt to ignore users of this product too" in the press related to Google products. Next time Google kills a product, the media will reflect about how it's "just as bad as what they did with Reader in 2013." Killing widely used products is now something Google does; it is a behavior they are now strongly associated with.
In terms of influencers, it's not about the individual product, it's about the behavior of the company that operated it. Don't piss off the people that give you free advertising by taking out features they like, even if they're the only ones who use them.
>> a product no one knew existed
While I find that a stretch, the point the article was making is that no one needs to know of the existence of Reader for this to have a negative impact on Google. Except for the influencers, who did.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OGinparadise|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] finnp|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mindless2112|13 years ago|reply