Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 18th May 2013 21:33 UTC
Google Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 562018
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

or tony hirst said the same in much better way:
"It's not just [..] Google+ [..] doesn't do RSS. It’s not just because Google is shutting down the Google Reader backbone that powers a lot of RSS and Atom syndication feed services (and leaves me wondering: how long is Feedburner for this world? It’s not just that geocoding done within Fusion Tables is not exported – if you look at a KML feed from Google Fusion Tables, you’ll find there’s no lat-long data there. It’s not just that Google is deprecating gadgets from spreadsheets, which as Martin points out means that if I want to visualise data in a spreadsheet all I’m going to be left with is Google’s crappy charts… It’s not just that Google moved away from using CalDav to support calendar interoperability… It’s not just that Google is moving away from using the XMPP instant messaging protocol...It’s not just that Google uses tax efficient corporate structures to minimise its tax bill, because lots of companies do that…

It’s not just any one of these things, taken on its own merits… it’s all of them taken together

Embrace, extend, extinguish”… where have we heard that before?"

Reply Parent Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:

So, you're trying to say that Google should have no right to shutter services they don't feel suit their purposes as long as those services are used by even just one person or those services are based open standards? That's just silly.

The standards and specs, like e.g. RSS or XMPP, do not disappear anywhere even if Google stops using them so there's no "embrace and extinguish" here at all, and if Google feels they can better achieve their goals by moving to something different then by all means. I am an avid user of Google Reader and I don't know what to move to once it's shuttered, but even I can see that it's a wholly separate, secluded tool away from Google's core services and the appeal for Google to implement the functionality in a different way so that they can bring it as a part of Google+/Search.

Reply Parent Score: 8

kwan_e Member since:

Google's a public service provided by the government, don't you know?

Reply Parent Score: 3

some1 Member since:

You have to look at the history to see that.
Google Reader was not the first RSS aggregator. There was a variety of both online and offline applications before it. When it came out, it very quickly became the most popular, making everything else niche products. A lot of these other aggregators shut down, and their authors moved on, making Reader's share even bigger. So by closing Reader Google makes a significant blow to RSS aggregators. If there's a significant demand, might be a revival of the genre and old and new products will appear. But it's also possible that most people don't care any more, and those few who want RSS will have harder time at finding a good aggregator.
Now, I'm not saying Google has an obligation to keep its free service open forever, or that it necessarily closed Reader in bad faith, but this is a classic case of "embrace, extinguish".

Reply Parent Score: 4

WorknMan Member since:

So, you're trying to say that Google should have no right to shutter services they don't feel suit their purposes as long as those services are used by even just one person or those services are based open standards? That's just silly.

This is another perspective on the matter:

I think it wouldn't be so bad if they were a little more transparent about certain things. For example, many of us Google Voice users can't help but wonder what its fate is. It hasn't had any substantial updates in awhile, and still doesn't have any sort of API, so things like the GV dashclock widget has to do some janky workaround just to read text notifications. And this goes double for Google+, which doesn't have a full read/write API either.

Like one of the comments on the above article said, it's like Google is talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, they act like they're the champions of openness, but sometimes their actions don't show it.

Personally, I think the real reason why they're axing Google Reader is because it gives users direct control over what content they want to see, and Google as of late tends to be all about removing that kind of control.

Better to let them decide for you, based on what data they have collected about you, and whatever your friends are interested in. Rather than RSS, they'd rather push you into G+, which gives you absolutely NO control over what content is delivered to your stream.

Edited 2013-05-19 06:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:

A) Killing off Reader is the opposite of locking in. It's more like relinquishing the market to actually be open. Let alone with just two clicks I moved from Reader to Feedly... if that's lock-in, then what is not?
B) The geocoding information is not Google's to give away... It's like asking Google to give away the data behind Google Maps or allow blanket downloads of YouTube content.
C) Deprecating stuff and removing stuff is not lock-in.
D) Yes they removed CalDAV and provided an alternative API.
E) How is tax related to lock-in?

Reply Parent Score: 4