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 562030
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

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:
2007-02-18

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

Reply Parent Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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


If it was they wouldn't try so hard to avoid paying taxes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Yes actually DARPA gave them founds at the beginning.

Reply Parent Score: 2

some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

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

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

but this is a classic case of "embrace, extinguish".


I disagree. The "embrace and extinguish" - tactics is all about deliberately harming the market, with real, malicious intent. I do not see that here, all I see is a secondary effect simply caused by Google having made the superior product and no longer having use for it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

spinnekopje Member since:
2008-11-29

There is nothing that prevents other companies to provide the same service at the same or higher quality.
When Google shuts down their implimentation, there are lots of users that will be looking for an alternative..

Reply Parent Score: 2

geertjan Member since:
2010-10-29

The thing is, since Google announced the end of Reader, new RSS readers have started popping up quickly, and they are trying to match Reader's quality. RSS readers were crap before Google Reader, and now they will be better. Google raised the bar, and we as users will be better off thanks to its existence.

Reply Parent Score: 5

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

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:
http://eschnou.com/entry/whats-next-google--dropping-smtp-support--...

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

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Rather than RSS, they'd rather push you into G+, which gives you absolutely NO control over what content is delivered to your stream.


It doesn't? Why don't I ever see celebrity news there? Blog posts and the likes trying to push me to buy this or that? Why do I only see things I've deliberately chosen?

Reply Parent Score: 4

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The thing about Google Reader is that they got f*cked by local gov-lobbying. France and germany introduced laws to cash them, cash those Reader services. 2 weeks late, once the lobby-law passed in germany, Google announced aborting the Reader. Thing is they never made much money with that services but to continue that services put them under permanent risk.

The bottom-line you will not read in any news since its the news-media who pushed for that law. If or how smaller RSS services may become target if there are not much $ to win from them stays to be seen.

Edited 2013-05-19 12:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5