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

Google Reader is dead

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 215 posts

Re: Google Reader is dead

#131

Post by fooqux »

marbletiles wrote: post #123
batiudrami wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think my position is any closer to trolling than the also cliche comments of 'Google have so much money, running reader must be next-to-nothing for them', 'if Google gave me the option, I'd gladly pay for it', 'yeah sure, the (maybe) one full time staff required to look after Reader is really taking energy away from other projects' which is basically all of the comments on these threads. That was what my post…

The "weird sense" comes directly from Google's pitches, which amount to "use our free service: Trust all your data to it! Nothing will go wrong, we're here forever!". Which is a pitch they continue to make, with Drive and Hangouts and each successive launch, but never once cautioning "btw if this doesn't work out for us we'll kill the service". They even relaunch previously failed projects in the same spaces where th…

You make a good point. I do want to point out that typically Google gives plenty of notice, and gives users the option of downloading and backing up whatever data they had stored on their service before pulling the plug. Even now, you can still head to Reader and download your personal data and whatnot, up to 15 days after they turn it off.

I don't like it either, but it's not the same as them just deleting your data suddenly, which you seem to be alluding to.

Re: Google Reader is dead

#132

Post by frankcaron »

I'm curious; given that HN represents a community that could very well be construed as the "power user" archetype, how much would people here have paid for Reader as a service? $5/month? $100/year? Free with a Google Drive subscription?

Re: Google Reader is dead

#134

Post by coldtea »

batiudrami wrote: post #71
bdz wrote: post #28

"... we’re pouring all of our energy into fewer products. We think that kind of focus will make for a better user experience." Yeah, Reader held back the development of the robot car, glasses, floating balloon internet and the brazilian social site...

I'm pretty sick of this argument. Google is a company, they are not compelled to continue to support a product which is (presumably) not making money, or even if the resources they devote to it could be making more money elsewhere. Honestly I think Google went above and beyond by giving advance notice, having an API which allows feed exporting and allowing subscriptions to continue to be exported after they close it…

>I'm pretty sick of this argument. Google is a company, they are not compelled to continue to support a product which is (presumably) not making money, or even if the resources they devote to it could be making more money elsewhere.

And I'm sick of hearing THIS argument. Google is a company. They make money out of our eyeballs. We have every right to criticise them whenever they do something some of us don't like.

Re: Google Reader is dead

#135

Post by coldtea »

laureny wrote: post #126
mikeash wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're attacking a straw man here. To attack Google for shutting down Reader in general is, I agree, silly. They don't owe us anything, and they managed the shutdown fairly gracefully. But that's not what was going on in the comment you replied to. He's pointing out that their stated justification doesn't make a lot of sense. Google says they're shutting down Reader to put more focus on a smaller number of products,…

> He's pointing out that their stated justification doesn't make a lot of sense. Google says they're shutting down Reader to put more focus on a smaller number of products, but they're just as scattered as ever You can't criticize Google for shutting down Reader and then accuse them of being scattered in the same sentence. By shutting down Reader, they are limiting their scattering, and Reader is not the only product…

>You can't criticize Google for shutting down Reader and then accuse them of being scattered in the same sentence. By shutting down Reader, they are limiting their scattering, and Reader is not the only product they are shutting down.

No, you very much can.

Since, you know, they are shutting down a product in their main area of expertise, only to pursue BS non-products all around the map.

Re: Google Reader is dead

#136

Post by deweerdt »

epsylon wrote: post #88
batiudrami wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sick of this argument. Google is a company, they are not compelled to continue to support a product which is (presumably) not making money, or even if the resources they devote to it could be making more money elsewhere. Honestly I think Google went above and beyond by giving advance notice, having an API which allows feed exporting and allowing subscriptions to continue to be exported after they close it…

I'm pretty sure plenty of Reader power users would have been glad to pay for it, myself included.

That would have meant customer support, wouldn't it? Google doesn't do that.

Re: Google Reader is dead

#138

Post by coldtea »

fooqux wrote: post #130
mikeash wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Of course I can accuse them of being scattered when they shut down Reader, if they still have a ton of other projects without any particular coherent goal, which is absolutely the case. They want to shut it down, fine, I don't really care. But the result is not "focus".

Regardless of how many products they have, they still have one less after shutting down Reader. I'd say the argument still stands.

>Regardless of how many products they have, they still have one less after shutting down Reader. I'd say the argument still stands.

Not if, in the same period they "closed the Reader to in order to focus", they started more than one products, all around the map.

If I tell you:

"I stopped going to the gym in order to focus on my painting more. Oh, and I also started bowling, belly-dancing, snooker, and etching classes -- and I'm leaving next week for snorkeling in Thailand"

then I'd argue that me stopping 1 thing does not not in the least mean I'm more focused now.

Re: Google Reader is dead

#139

Post by coldtea »

deweerdt wrote: post #136
epsylon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure plenty of Reader power users would have been glad to pay for it, myself included.

That would have meant customer support, wouldn't it? Google doesn't do that.

1) You can pay and get no support. You just deal with it. And it the service works OK (and there's nothing challenging about Google Reader workings) then there's nothing much to deal with, anyway.

2) Google does do support for some paid products they have. Like Adwords (of course) and GAE, and IIRC the enterprise Google offerings.

Re: Google Reader is dead

#140

Post by fooqux »

coldtea wrote: post #138
fooqux wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of how many products they have, they still have one less after shutting down Reader. I'd say the argument still stands.

> Regardless of how many products they have, they still have one less after shutting down Reader. I'd say the argument still stands. Not if, in the same period they "closed the Reader to in order to focus", they started more than one products, all around the map. If I tell you: "I stopped going to the gym in order to focus on my painting more. Oh, and I also started bowling, belly-dancing, snooker, and etching classe…

That is fallacious. You're assuming they weren't going to start those other products anyway.
Post reply on HN