Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#111

Post by Digit-Al »

saraid216 wrote: post #102
pazimzadeh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, seriously can you elucidate? He could at least meet with someone who had worked on the project.

It's fairly common knowledge that Reader had zero support inside Google, and hasn't had any support in several years.

It seems to me that it didn't need much in the way of support. I have been using it for several years and have never experienced so much as a glitch. That could be down to excellent support, of course, but to me it seemed a mature product that could have been left to run exactly as is for any length of time and nobody would have complained.

I just don't see why they couldn't have just left it running as-is, without any support.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#112

Post by snaky »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #97
pazimzadeh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, seriously can you elucidate? He could at least meet with someone who had worked on the project.

Once Reader lost favor inside the 'plex people didn't want to work on it because it wouldn't show well on their resume. (you don't get promoted for applying CPR to a dead product and manage to keep it alive in intensive care for another budget cycle). So there were no doubt people who were working on other projects who had previously worked on Reader sometimes fixing bugs, and there was probably a product manager som…

OK, you don't get promoted etc. But promotion isn't one and only motivation, right? For two years there wasn't one Google employee who added one feature to Google Reader just for fun? Ouch.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#113

Post by VikingCoder »

OGinparadise wrote: post #106
VikingCoder wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"under the guise"? Pretend for one yoctosecond that you work at Google, disagree with the decision to shut down Reader, and are in a position to try to make the product you're working on help fill the void. That people like you assume it's malice, or some conspiracy or evil plot, just saddens me. Full disclosure: I have empathy, and own GOOG stock.

Pretend for one yoctosecond that you work at Google, disagree with the decision to shut down Reader, and are in a position to try to make the product you're working on help fill the void. So, Google would allow another team to create a clone of what they shut down after all these years? Their excuse was that they need to focus on fewer products

Yeah, they could.

For one, Reader could be built on a very different set of APIs that makes it inherently difficult to maintain.

That's speculation, but it's certainly the kind of thing that has happened at every large company I've ever worked at.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#114

Post by ajross »

Karunamon wrote: post #109
joshma wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not demonstrably false, as the Quora post you linked to is 3 almost 2 years old. (For comparison, the latest answer is right around when G+ launched.) The large majority of the population doesn't even know what RSS is, let alone use it for their day-to-day reading.

You have reason to believe that Reader's usage went down in two years?

Relative to Google+? Yes.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#115

Post by judofyr »

Karunamon wrote: post #109
joshma wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not demonstrably false, as the Quora post you linked to is 3 almost 2 years old. (For comparison, the latest answer is right around when G+ launched.) The large majority of the population doesn't even know what RSS is, let alone use it for their day-to-day reading.

You have reason to believe that Reader's usage went down in two years?

You have reason to believe that Reader's usage went up in two years?

(I personally have no idea…)

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#116

Post by jcampbell1 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #93
jcampbell1 wrote: post #34

Google can be damn stupid sometimes. They shutdown Google Reader which is used daily by every journalist on the planet. This resulted in a ton of bad press which was completely foreseeable. Now they have some chieftain try to change the conversation into "Tell me what you loved about Reader", under the guise that they will use your comment to help make better products. As if Google has no data on how people use Googl…

"under the guise"? Pretend for one yoctosecond that you work at Google, disagree with the decision to shut down Reader, and are in a position to try to make the product you're working on help fill the void. That people like you assume it's malice, or some conspiracy or evil plot, just saddens me. Full disclosure: I have empathy, and own GOOG stock.

It is possible that Mr Zunger woke up this morning and thought , "This is a great oppourtunity to get a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated feedback on a product that is being shutdown. I'd like to spend half my day moderating comments".

It could also be that he wanted to redirect some of the passion for google reader in a positive direction. Make Google a bit more empathetic and friendly.

It could be some combination of the two.

I don't see malice here. I think Mr. Zunger made a smart move.

Now if he actually thought he was going to learn something he didn't already know from those comments, that would sadden me.

He is smart enough to realize that comments like those have a huge power-user sample bias and are mostly useless.

My lemmings comment was way out of bounds.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#117

Post by VikingCoder »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #116
VikingCoder wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"under the guise"? Pretend for one yoctosecond that you work at Google, disagree with the decision to shut down Reader, and are in a position to try to make the product you're working on help fill the void. That people like you assume it's malice, or some conspiracy or evil plot, just saddens me. Full disclosure: I have empathy, and own GOOG stock.

It is possible that Mr Zunger woke up this morning and thought , "This is a great oppourtunity to get a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated feedback on a product that is being shutdown. I'd like to spend half my day moderating comments". It could also be that he wanted to redirect some of the passion for google reader in a positive direction. Make Google a bit more empathetic and friendly. It could be some combination…

Why would that sadden you?

If you worked there, wouldn't you do something similar?

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#118

Post by wmf »

pointernil wrote: post #36

Are there any exploitation available reg. WHY they are closing it down? Either the users being loud about it are a minority (it that case ok close it, deal with it etc.) OR they are not, and in that case I'm wondering: When did Google lose its sense for the needs of users on the internet? and What is the problem google as an enterprise is having with the service staying alive... as at the same time g+ currently simpl…

Google is shutting down everything that has fewer than ~50M users.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#119

Post by ChuckMcM »

snaky wrote: post #112
ChuckMcM wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once Reader lost favor inside the 'plex people didn't want to work on it because it wouldn't show well on their resume. (you don't get promoted for applying CPR to a dead product and manage to keep it alive in intensive care for another budget cycle). So there were no doubt people who were working on other projects who had previously worked on Reader sometimes fixing bugs, and there was probably a product manager som…

OK, you don't get promoted etc. But promotion isn't one and only motivation, right? For two years there wasn't one Google employee who added one feature to Google Reader just for fun? Ouch.

I reiterate :-) its hard to explain for folks on the outside. There are so many shiny toys inside of Google that yes, you could easily go 2, 3, even 5 years before you even thought to yourself "Hmm, I wonder if we could make Reader do this ..."

More often than not, if you had touched the code, it was because someone had decided to replace the way services do user credentials in an incompatible way and someone told you had to make this code work with the new scheme, by the end of the month because it was holding up shipping the new user credential protobufs... so you ended up in the code with a gun pointed at your head saying "go fix this code you've never seen to use this new API that the code never anticipated calling."

Probably wouldn't make you want to go back "just for fun."

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#120

Post by scott_s »

roc wrote: post #107
scott_s wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I work, Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products. That happens higher than them. Their responsibility is engineering the architecture of their product. So, yes, I think it's accurate to refer to a Chief Architect as "an engineer."

> "Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products." No, but if you were trying to convince people you weren't forcing them into Google+, but Google+ was presenting alternatives out of their sincere love for the people, you wouldn't use the person who made the decision now would you? And who better to stand up and ask "how can we help" than one of the people who will later take to the Google Blog to say…

An event's possibility is not evidence for its occurrence.
Post reply on HN