Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's that, but it's also a symbol for how the Web has changed. Google bulldozing Reader in order to clear ground for a (intended) social media behemoth reflects how all sorts of smaller online communities and spaces have been razed or faded away as everything continues to consolidate onto the social media giants.
And it's not just the web. It's everything. Every company in our capitalist utopia just keeps growing and growing. Microsoft is the perfect example. They've bought companies from the start, and never stopped. I still hate that they were allowed to buy GitHub. They will eventually make it supplant their stupid MSDN "devops" thing in their offerings. But if not Microsoft, it just would have been Oracle or Amazon or som…
RIP Google Reader
301–310 of 424 posts
Re: RIP Google Reader
#302Whatever was said at the time, I’m convinced Google Reader was collateral damage from the Bay of Pigs Google Plus effort. It had social features (which I honestly never used) and anything social had to be G+. Still, I honestly don’t understand why this is the hill people want to die on, what they feel most betrayed about. Like I haven’t seen some people this upset since Firefly was canceled.
In retrospect Reader's death marked a turning point in how Google was perceived. There were grumblings before that but Google was still the darling of the web. As you say, Google+ was consuming Google at that time. So when they killed Reader it was not just killing a beloved service. It also acted like a lightning rod for the discontent that had started to swell. A lot of people would never again view Google through…
Though very disappointed, it is not surprising in retrospect. Google doesn't want to make a niche application for a handful (relatively) of nerds. They want to make unduplicatable AI/big-data services for billion+ users. Anyone can make a feed reader. No one else has been able to create a search engine, translation service, or email service (spam filtering, auto-complete) nearly as good.
Re: RIP Google Reader
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I noticed this too: I think Google Reader was heavily used by the right sort of people (devs, bloggers and media types) that, when Google killed it, it created a lot of bad will with the people who shape opinions.
Who then went and told everyone else that RSS was dead because Reader was gone.
Spotify wants you to believe it, but it's not true.
Re: RIP Google Reader
#304And don't forget Google Wave.
Re: RIP Google Reader
#305Google doesn't want the google reader users. They're the sort of people that don't scroll through ads.
Re: RIP Google Reader
#306Whatever was said at the time, I’m convinced Google Reader was collateral damage from the Bay of Pigs Google Plus effort. It had social features (which I honestly never used) and anything social had to be G+. Still, I honestly don’t understand why this is the hill people want to die on, what they feel most betrayed about. Like I haven’t seen some people this upset since Firefly was canceled.
Not sure I am/was upset enough to call it the hill I want to die on, but to me this was the decisive moment where social media took over people's consciousness. To me, it was a curated feed of educational, informative, and entertaining content sources; devoid of people constantly throwing their political biases in my face and telling me what a horrible person I am. Logically, it could have been replaced by any number of other feed aggregator tools, but it seemed the war was already lost and social media took over regardless. It wasn't the beginning of the social media onslaught, it was the last hurdle.
Meh, maybe that's inaccurate, but that's how I have felt ever since.
Re: RIP Google Reader
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter still supports the chronological timeline. It's no Google Reader, but I refuse to submit to The Algorithm.
Yes, and how often are you having to switch it back? I've read several stories that Twitter will flip it back for you every couple of weeks.
Seems to be the default if you log out and back in. Which I do a lot. But otherwise it (seems to) stick(s).
Re: RIP Google Reader
#308As someone who was born too late for Google Reader, I genuinely don't understand why people bring it up every 5 minutes. There are 1000 feed reader apps that exist right now, some of which have the branding of "it's just like Google Reader", so what am I missing here?
I guess you had to be there? "it's just like Google Reader" means it's NOT as good, but close enough. GR was solid and we LOVED it, especially the search. I think RSS readers are one of those things that some of us LOVE and we're still bitter that Google took it away. Maybe it was the first big thing Google cancelled? I know for me it was, and I've not trusted anything new from Google since. Maybe that's it... before…
I miss search the most, no other replacement came even close. Like a searchable corpus of your curated library of stuff you're interested in.
Re: RIP Google Reader
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the VC cycle in a nutshell: venture capital does some PoC, business/tech R&D, and when it fails (usually does!) the lessons are still available to others. It's no different even if the (defunct) startup has a patent: IP law doesn't really matter when the IP doesn't have any money behind it.
> It's no different even if the (defunct) startup has a patent Not true - VC's are scared of giving money to anything that directly infringes a patent. If the company ever does wildly well, you can be sure whoever bought that patent for cents will be trying to collect millions...
I don't think VC's care about patents, they care about risk. A patent without any money behind it isn't a risk. A company that isn't making money to steal also isn't at risk. But if you have money, and the patent holder has money, then let the legal fireworks begin, and as a happy side-effect, the patent attorneys get to pay for their kids' college, and maybe an investment property or two.
Re: RIP Google Reader
#310The real missed opportunity for Google was expanding reader's social/collaboration features into a more robust social network.It would have saved them from trying to ham fist Google+ for everyone. It could have been a home for Wave and Buzz type of tech. Instead they threw out the baby, be damn the bathwater. That being said, I have a found NewsBlur a great replacement.
I was aghast when they killed Reader in order to promote G+. It was obviously the kind of "strategic business" decision that I would only expect from a failing organization, which changed my view of Google.
The organic, 'bootstrapped' way forward for Google would have been to carefully expand the social features of Reader, which had a large loyal following. Instead they forced it to stagnate then sacrificed it upon their stupid G+ altar trying to copy Facebook years late. SO lame.