The latent support for this post: you won't lose Evernote 7 years later. But who knows?
The question is whether or not that's more or less likely than Keep being around for that same amount of time. In Om's mind that balance has clearly shifted.
Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
231–240 of 242 posts
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
The turnoff switch for Reader is an inflection point for Google towards Microsoftization; where they new product launches will be skeptically seen by hackers, and geeks. I went to my phone, and did a Google spring cleanup yesterday, by deleting all the stuff I didn't use, and thought Google would see a future ; That is good for startups, they may attack Google product segments with ease, and we shall all PR for them…
No, the de-standardizing of Google Calendar is Microsoftization. 1. Release something that's compatible with another popular thing. 2. Build up a huge following. 3. Remove the compatibility. 4. ??? 5. Profit! It's the same thing that happened with NT and OS/2 compatibility. I'm not sure if Excel can still deal with Lotus files, but Excel got popular because of its Lotus compatibility.
And in fact, Google did this most specifically to Microsoft.
http://www.zdnet.com/google-drops-exchange-activesync-suppor...
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
For things like that, such a service makes complete sense. But for things that I spend real money on, I've already developed a filter in my brain to weed out anything that looks like paid shilling. This is why I stopped using Google Shopping after it went paid-only, and why I skip the first page of Google Search when researching products. Now if they could make this a social thing, where real, authenticated, non-paid…
I find that even for topics related to money the top hits on Google are all completely useless spam. I was looking for information about companies selling software components and just found a bunch of "sellyourappnow.com" offering Fruit Ninja clones for a few hundred bucks. For whatever reason businesses that love their margins more than their customers find it's much more convenient to astroturf services like Yelp t…
Stack Exchange gets pretty close, with its robust reputation/moderation system.
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used it on vacation a lot the other week. Just say "Navigate me to x" or "Directions to y" or "Find the nearest z" and you get it right away in Google Maps/Navigation. Probably my favorite non-passive feature of it. Then when staying at the hotel, it knows I'm staying there and tells me when I'm driving elsewhere how far away I am from it with traffic and how to go back via a notification. Other times, if you call…
This kind of thing probably works well in major markets. Last time I used google naviation it took me to a vacant lot half a mile from where I wanted to go. Another time it took me on a convoluted route that included cutting through two private apartment parking lots for a destination that turned out to be literally around the corner and down the road from where I started. This is not uncommon in my part of the US (m…
Just to follow up, I've only really used it in metropolitan areas/suburbs and on long trips where I knew the address ahead of time, so I can't comment on accuracy in rural areas or small towns. Guessing it's similar to your situation though if it's an area not as well traveled.
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
its a terrible shorthand for "something". I always read it as "sith".
I am from India and so I grew up on British English and have stuck to that. I was gifted a Oxford Pocket Dictionary when I was a kid, by an uncle. I practically learned my English with that dictionary, had it till recently when I passed it down to my niece(who is in 5th grade as of now). Now, you'll have to trust me on these two statements: 1. I did learn " sth 'can' be used for something " from that old good little…
Thanks for the explanation. I grew up in the USA, and covered a fair bit of British literature in school, but I've never encountered this usage before.
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could argue Reader organized information as well.
Reader lets you organize information, not Google for you.
Better kill Calendar then. Can't have us mortals organizing our own schedules.
And Google Drive better get rid of folders. Just have a box you drop files on. If you need them back, hopefully you can figure out a search term to find them. But not using any search operators, those are too much like letting you organize.
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also turns out that Keep will provide them with a LOT more information about users that advertisers would pay through the nose to obtain. Reader.. not so much.
Reader.. not so much. How so? Show me someone's blog subscriptions, and then metrics on entries they clicked on, how long they viewed it, and the clicks that they followed, and I could quickly get a very accurate profile of the person.
Assuming people were to ONLY use this for todo lists, that would be infinitely more useful than what feeds and stories a person is interested in. They probably also get a lot of that information already with Google News and Google Analytics.
I suspect there will be a lot more than just todo lists, so the possibilities are really endless.
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing or fundamentally disabling a service that many people depend upon is qualitatively different from merely removing a feature. Google dropping Reader has potential impact more like Yahoo!'s debacle with the Delicious relaunch. That change was so drastic that it was effectively a data-loss event for most users, obliterating years of carefully curated data. As Om points out, such actions are very destructive of…
So what's the solution? To keep products and strategy static forever so that nobody gets perturbed? It seems like Google has given ample time and accessibility for its users and developers to adapt.
I don't think there is a solution. It's a situation of inherent conflict which the involved parties just have to deal with. On one hand, no individual or organization can be expected to support a service that doesn't align with their goals and interests. On the other, it's unreasonable to expect people who valued the project to go quietly into the night. I view that as part of the shutdown cost for a popular service.
> It seems like Google has given ample time and accessibility for its users and developers to adapt.
I agree. But Reader has a significant online community around it. The friction and uncertainty created by Google's decision is bound to find an outlet.
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#239Expecting services to continue forever is like expecting that you will never be laid off.
It is a rude awakening when it happens, but it should hardly be surprising for anyone that has been around for a while.
Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
#240I don't see how dropping one product == become untrustworthy. This is like if you went to the supermarket every day to buy milk, flour, sugar, beans, and lettuce. And then the supermarket realises that it is uneconomical for them to provide lettuce, so they drop it, but they do start selling eggs. And you look at those eggs and say 'Yeah, Right. I'm not going to buy those. I remember what happened to the lettuce.'
It's more like if Walmart opened one of its big stores in your small home town and drove almost all of the smaller retailers for miles around out of business and a few years later said "Oh, this location sucks." and closed up shop.
Only if it took one week for another shopowner to start up again, and they gave 3 months notice. There was never even a cut in functionality; I'm already using Feedly instead of Google Reader, and Reader's still going to be around for another few months yet.