3 ms·

Also, independent (and interconnected) blogs simply have no place in their future where valuable/insightful content would be on Google+. Thus, to choke off the

Also, independent (and interconnected) blogs simply have no place in their future where valuable/insightful content would be on Google+. Thus, to choke off the audience for blogs, Google Reader had to die.

ohCh6zos 5y ago
This is a sad summary of the state of the web. Do you think if there was more focus on protocols it'd fix it, or is there no way back to a better web?
- wolpoli 5y ago
  The nature open protocol makes it easy for companies to join. They could invest and insert itself somewhere in the ecosystem to add value, and once they dominate, they could evolve and close it up. Web sites with fantastic content are still out there. We just can't find them because Google search doesn't list them anymore and web sites don't link to each other.
astrange 5y ago
I have been told that Reader had to die for good privacy reasons that can't be shared. But what I don't understand is, why are people so upset about it? It's not the world's only RSS client.
- wolpoli 5y ago
  Yes, it wasn't the world's only RSS client, but the existence of it, along with Google's backing, had somewhat stifled innovations. So there weren't that many options to choose from at the point. There were a few reasons I could think of why people were upset: Reader started in the era of when Google was generous. It gave away 1GB of email storage and free Email service for your own domain. It felt like a betrayal to end the service like this. There was the same reaction when Google announced the end of Gsuite legacy free edition. Finally, Google essentially declared to the entire world that RSS was dead. Although Google claimed that usage of Reader had fallen, the users who continued to use it do get values from it and thus they very much disagree with that assessment. It wasn't like Google was a small business that had fallen on hard time.

ohCh6zos 5y ago

This is a sad summary of the state of the web. Do you think if there was more focus on protocols it'd fix it, or is there no way back to a better web?

wolpoli 5y ago
The nature open protocol makes it easy for companies to join. They could invest and insert itself somewhere in the ecosystem to add value, and once they dominate, they could evolve and close it up. Web sites with fantastic content are still out there. We just can't find them because Google search doesn't list them anymore and web sites don't link to each other.

astrange 5y ago

I have been told that Reader had to die for good privacy reasons that can't be shared. But what I don't understand is, why are people so upset about it? It's not the world's only RSS client.

wolpoli 5y ago
Yes, it wasn't the world's only RSS client, but the existence of it, along with Google's backing, had somewhat stifled innovations. So there weren't that many options to choose from at the point. There were a few reasons I could think of why people were upset: Reader started in the era of when Google was generous. It gave away 1GB of email storage and free Email service for your own domain. It felt like a betrayal to end the service like this. There was the same reaction when Google announced the end of Gsuite legacy free edition. Finally, Google essentially declared to the entire world that RSS was dead. Although Google claimed that usage of Reader had fallen, the users who continued to use it do get values from it and thus they very much disagree with that assessment. It wasn't like Google was a small business that had fallen on hard time.