>The problem was that they didn't maintain it. They let it languish, staying exactly the same for years ... That's what maintenance is though. Keeping somethi

>The problem was that they didn't maintain it. They let it languish, staying exactly the same for years ... That's what maintenance is though. Keeping something functional, but not developing it further. >... because they never figured out how to monetize it. That's not true. They shut down Reader because the codebase was dated, and there were few engineers left on that team. It was a reallocation of resources. >Sunset Google Reader over a much longer period of time, like a year instead of the 3.5 months they gave. That I agree with.