5 ms·

Reader really was the turning point for me personally. Before that I was a strong advocate for Google, I used any of their products that made sense and I would

Reader really was the turning point for me personally. Before that I was a strong advocate for Google, I used any of their products that made sense and I would jump in and try anything new. Then reader was shut down and I had to start re-evaluating the services I used. Slowly that meant distancing myself from anything google.

acdha 4y ago
Same. One of the big things I don't think their management appreciated was how Reader's users skewed towards people who influenced others — journalists, libraries, the family “tech expert”, etc. — and how forcing them out of something which worked into something which simply wasn't ready to launch ensured that, unlike almost every previous Google launch, the coverage was predominantly negative. They'd had flops before (e.g. Buzz) but since nobody was forced to stop using something they liked to use the flop those didn't damage the brand anywhere near as much.
- MrPatan 4y ago
  Yes, Reader was Google's Twitter, in the way that maybe it doesn't make money but it can be used to put the right info in front of the right people. Throwing away that capability is demented. We were lucky, really.
- nerdjon 4y ago
  Yeah I do think that was seriously under calculated. It seems like reader comes up on nearly every article about google screwing up something like this. What I never understood though, why did they cancel it in the first place. I always figured that the crawler likely used RSS for discovery. I mean why wouldn't it? I constantly find that RSS has articles before I see them on the website. So how much extra data were they really storing for supporting Reader? I mean they had to support the UI but it just seemed like an odd removal.
  - acdha 4y ago
    I’ve heard it brought up by C-level executives considering GCP. The business models are different but the idea that things will be cancelled has been well linked to the brand. My understanding on Reader is that it was less the data than that it was older code and the internal dependencies were rotting.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

acdha 4y ago

Same. One of the big things I don't think their management appreciated was how Reader's users skewed towards people who influenced others — journalists, libraries, the family “tech expert”, etc. — and how forcing them out of something which worked into something which simply wasn't ready to launch ensured that, unlike almost every previous Google launch, the coverage was predominantly negative. They'd had flops before (e.g. Buzz) but since nobody was forced to stop using something they liked to use the flop those didn't damage the brand anywhere near as much.

MrPatan 4y ago
Yes, Reader was Google's Twitter, in the way that maybe it doesn't make money but it can be used to put the right info in front of the right people. Throwing away that capability is demented. We were lucky, really.
nerdjon 4y ago
Yeah I do think that was seriously under calculated. It seems like reader comes up on nearly every article about google screwing up something like this. What I never understood though, why did they cancel it in the first place. I always figured that the crawler likely used RSS for discovery. I mean why wouldn't it? I constantly find that RSS has articles before I see them on the website. So how much extra data were they really storing for supporting Reader? I mean they had to support the UI but it just seemed like an odd removal.
- acdha 4y ago
  I’ve heard it brought up by C-level executives considering GCP. The business models are different but the idea that things will be cancelled has been well linked to the brand. My understanding on Reader is that it was less the data than that it was older code and the internal dependencies were rotting.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]