6 ms·

Google killing of Reader was the symbolic point where the business plan of the internet moved from "Let's sell stuff to users!" to "Let's sell users to advertis

Google killing of Reader was the symbolic point where the business plan of the internet moved from "Let's sell stuff to users!" to "Let's sell users to advertisers!".

b33j0r 4y ago
Thank you for making my exact comment. I was too stressed out today and you nailed it ;)
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Google Reader was a free product, subsidized by google ads.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tomrod 4y ago
  Google Reader was a service that brought in good will, subsidized by people trusting Google to "not be evil" and provide useful services. This subsequently turned into people using Google's money-making products, like ads. At least to most I've spoken with on the subject (a few dozen, so informal straw poll), killing Google Reader turned people's opinion of Google from scrappy startup to untrustworthy behemoth.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > At least to most I've spoken with on the subject (a few dozen, so informal straw poll), killing Google Reader turned people's opinion of Google from scrappy startup to untrustworthy behemoth. You can add me to that informal poll. I moved to Feedly, but Google Reader was my go to for a whole lot of years. My opinion of Google changed the day they announced its demise. I am probably an outlier but the only way I want to consume content on the web is via RSS feeds. Allows me to curate what I see and if subscribed sites start delivering me poor content, I drop them from the feed list.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      +1
- incanus77 4y ago
  Right, but it was an early step in Google’s now-classic playbook of undercutting existing paid solutions by subsidizing a free, shiny alternative, driving the paid versions out of business, then either turning their product into a surveillance nightmare or shutting it down.
- jdgoesmarching 4y ago
  So is Mail, Maps, Calendar, Drive, Docs, Youtube, etc. What’s your point?
college_physics 4y ago
Indeed, spot on. And given the internet is the computer this is (as good as any) a representation of the fatal bifurcation that has essentially destroyed the potential of digitization for at least a generation (and maybe forever)
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  Agreed. And that while I am not claiming Apple as a savior here or anything, imagine how bad it could be if we didn’t have at least 1 company still in the business of selling computers. At least to SOME degree. Things could be a lot worse
  - eternityforest 4y ago
    Apple does some amazing things with network protocols, but they are a leading force in pushing walled gardens, locked down devices, and such. Other companies give you less privacy, but more functionality exposed to the user. Of course, without Apple's walled gardens, google might lock down their stuff too, no longer needing to have a bit of openness to differentiate themselves.
mfer 4y ago
I'm going to disagree with that. It was when business plans from moved from letting users control what they consume to being in control of what users consume.
- smeej 4y ago
  Why did they want to do that, if not to be more effective, in the long run, for advertisers?
  - mfer 4y ago
    There are a variety of motivations. These include... The biggest is that they are trying to maximize revenue/profits. In controlling the flow of information to people they are in better control of that. A lot has been studied about this. I didn't realize there were other motivations until FB started to publish studies they carried out on people. Some of those (which they published awhile ago) were around the manipulation of users emotions and their ability to target voting groups (to increase people going to vote in target groups) around elections.
    - hamburglar 4y ago
      Yeah I can think of a few. That sort of influence is one, benefiting advertisers is another, positioning themselves to get a cut of all transactions is another. Is there an alternate universe where in order to get your content in front of users, it has to be AMP and in order to be AMP, it has to meet a new requirement that all payments must be done through a payment framework that lets google control the user experience (“purely for the end users’ benefit” of course)? Probably.
      - smeej 4y ago
        I hear what you guys are saying, but "maximize revenue/profits" means "benefit advertisers so they come to us instead of anybody else." "Getting a cut of all transactions" means benefitting advertisers who sell anything through the site. It's all advertising all the time.
numpad0 4y ago
I don’t know, to me it feels like it was 10 years ago.

Google killing of Reader was the symbolic point where the business plan of the internet moved from "Let's sell stuff to users!" to "Let's sell users to advertisers!".

b33j0r 4y ago

Thank you for making my exact comment. I was too stressed out today and you nailed it ;)

amadeuspagel 4y ago

Google Reader was a free product, subsidized by google ads.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tomrod 4y ago
Google Reader was a service that brought in good will, subsidized by people trusting Google to "not be evil" and provide useful services. This subsequently turned into people using Google's money-making products, like ads. At least to most I've spoken with on the subject (a few dozen, so informal straw poll), killing Google Reader turned people's opinion of Google from scrappy startup to untrustworthy behemoth.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > At least to most I've spoken with on the subject (a few dozen, so informal straw poll), killing Google Reader turned people's opinion of Google from scrappy startup to untrustworthy behemoth. You can add me to that informal poll. I moved to Feedly, but Google Reader was my go to for a whole lot of years. My opinion of Google changed the day they announced its demise. I am probably an outlier but the only way I want to consume content on the web is via RSS feeds. Allows me to curate what I see and if subscribed sites start delivering me poor content, I drop them from the feed list.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    +1
incanus77 4y ago
Right, but it was an early step in Google’s now-classic playbook of undercutting existing paid solutions by subsidizing a free, shiny alternative, driving the paid versions out of business, then either turning their product into a surveillance nightmare or shutting it down.
jdgoesmarching 4y ago
So is Mail, Maps, Calendar, Drive, Docs, Youtube, etc. What’s your point?

college_physics 4y ago

Indeed, spot on. And given the internet is the computer this is (as good as any) a representation of the fatal bifurcation that has essentially destroyed the potential of digitization for at least a generation (and maybe forever)

enos_feedler 4y ago
Agreed. And that while I am not claiming Apple as a savior here or anything, imagine how bad it could be if we didn’t have at least 1 company still in the business of selling computers. At least to SOME degree. Things could be a lot worse
- eternityforest 4y ago
  Apple does some amazing things with network protocols, but they are a leading force in pushing walled gardens, locked down devices, and such. Other companies give you less privacy, but more functionality exposed to the user. Of course, without Apple's walled gardens, google might lock down their stuff too, no longer needing to have a bit of openness to differentiate themselves.

mfer 4y ago

I'm going to disagree with that. It was when business plans from moved from letting users control what they consume to being in control of what users consume.

smeej 4y ago
Why did they want to do that, if not to be more effective, in the long run, for advertisers?
- mfer 4y ago
  There are a variety of motivations. These include... The biggest is that they are trying to maximize revenue/profits. In controlling the flow of information to people they are in better control of that. A lot has been studied about this. I didn't realize there were other motivations until FB started to publish studies they carried out on people. Some of those (which they published awhile ago) were around the manipulation of users emotions and their ability to target voting groups (to increase people going to vote in target groups) around elections.
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    Yeah I can think of a few. That sort of influence is one, benefiting advertisers is another, positioning themselves to get a cut of all transactions is another. Is there an alternate universe where in order to get your content in front of users, it has to be AMP and in order to be AMP, it has to meet a new requirement that all payments must be done through a payment framework that lets google control the user experience (“purely for the end users’ benefit” of course)? Probably.
    - smeej 4y ago
      I hear what you guys are saying, but "maximize revenue/profits" means "benefit advertisers so they come to us instead of anybody else." "Getting a cut of all transactions" means benefitting advertisers who sell anything through the site. It's all advertising all the time.

numpad0 4y ago

I don’t know, to me it feels like it was 10 years ago.