5 ms·

Yeah, I really don't understand what he's looking for here. He wants constructive criticism about what parts of Google Reader were useful, but if you complain a

Yeah, I really don't understand what he's looking for here. He wants constructive criticism about what parts of Google Reader were useful, but if you complain at all, your comment will be deleted. Google Reader itself was the useful piece. It aggregates RSS feeds. I don't really know how else you can explain that "yes, it aggregated RSS feeds, and I like to read all of my RSS feeds in one place".

mcrittenden 14y ago
I think he's asking what about Reader specifically made it more useful than the dozens of other RSS readers out there.
- masklinn 14y ago
  UI-less sync scheme between numerous devices, simpler application backends as the work of actually aggregating (querying and parsing feeds, notifying, ...) was handled by Reader and the client just had to implement a UI to that.
ditojim 14y ago
i also think this line of thinking is silly. the Googler is assuming a set of features is what made Google Reader the best RSS reader on the market. while that is true in essence (features do add up to the overall product) i don't think any 1 feature in reader was killer. rather, the collection of all the features made the app itself killer.
- rachelbythebay 14y ago
  In Mountain View, all problems are engineering problems. Even when they aren't.
r00fus 14y ago
All I can gather from Google's recent moves is: "useful != profitable"... and Google's more interested in profit than utility now.
- rtwtlkj 14y ago
  I have to say I'm kind of glad. I have some AI ideas that I think are going to be killer. Currently in the early development stage. If they are focusing more on profit probably they can get distracted enough to not see me coming. Currently worried that they are beefing up their AI pursuits because of the recent AI hires which could mean I don't even have a chance. Lets se what happens.
scott_s 14y ago
I thought it was straight-forward: he wants to understand what it was about Reader that users liked, so he can work on incorporating them into Google+. Since he does not have the power to save Reader, he's telling people this is not the venue to complain about its shutdown.
- Smudge 14y ago
  I see both points here. My response would be similar to nicksergeant's. The parts of Google Reader I found useful were the parts where you could read RSS feeds. Will RSS be incorporated into Google+ somehow? I don't really understand what else he's getting at.
- roc 14y ago
  That's funny, I assumed it was a PR move to make Google appear responsive when they inevitably add an RSS-ish feature to syndicate news subscriptions into google+ feeds, as opposed to appearing like a malevolent plan to kill a beloved service to push more people into google+. Hence it's counter-productive to mention the shutdown in negative terms, as that associates the two efforts in a way that underscores the latter interpretation.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    If it came from an executive or a press release, perhaps I would have assumed that. But it came from an engineer.
    - roc 14y ago
      "an engineer", Chief Architect, same difference, right?
      - scott_s 14y ago
        Where I work, Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products. That happens higher than them. Their responsibility is engineering the architecture of their product. So, yes, I think it's accurate to refer to a Chief Architect as "an engineer."
mixedbit 14y ago
Maybe the intent was just to draw attention to his product? You liked the Reader? Now, that it is going to be killed, tell us what you liked about it so we can add these features to G+. And by the way, look how awesome we are, we care about your needs, you can already start using G+, don't wait until we add features from the Reader, because this will never happen.
libria 14y ago
I don't get it either. I mean, if he really wants to make me happy but can only build in the context of G+, make a "Reader" tab and open up Reader in an iframe that takes up 90% of the page (outer frame optional). There's nothing about G+'s layout (or mission?) that will be conducive to feed reading. This is like asking me what I like about burgers so you can make a better salad.

mcrittenden 14y ago

I think he's asking what about Reader specifically made it more useful than the dozens of other RSS readers out there.

masklinn 14y ago
UI-less sync scheme between numerous devices, simpler application backends as the work of actually aggregating (querying and parsing feeds, notifying, ...) was handled by Reader and the client just had to implement a UI to that.

ditojim 14y ago

i also think this line of thinking is silly. the Googler is assuming a set of features is what made Google Reader the best RSS reader on the market. while that is true in essence (features do add up to the overall product) i don't think any 1 feature in reader was killer. rather, the collection of all the features made the app itself killer.

rachelbythebay 14y ago
In Mountain View, all problems are engineering problems. Even when they aren't.

r00fus 14y ago

All I can gather from Google's recent moves is: "useful != profitable"... and Google's more interested in profit than utility now.

rtwtlkj 14y ago
I have to say I'm kind of glad. I have some AI ideas that I think are going to be killer. Currently in the early development stage. If they are focusing more on profit probably they can get distracted enough to not see me coming. Currently worried that they are beefing up their AI pursuits because of the recent AI hires which could mean I don't even have a chance. Lets se what happens.

scott_s 14y ago

I thought it was straight-forward: he wants to understand what it was about Reader that users liked, so he can work on incorporating them into Google+. Since he does not have the power to save Reader, he's telling people this is not the venue to complain about its shutdown.

Smudge 14y ago
I see both points here. My response would be similar to nicksergeant's. The parts of Google Reader I found useful were the parts where you could read RSS feeds. Will RSS be incorporated into Google+ somehow? I don't really understand what else he's getting at.
roc 14y ago
That's funny, I assumed it was a PR move to make Google appear responsive when they inevitably add an RSS-ish feature to syndicate news subscriptions into google+ feeds, as opposed to appearing like a malevolent plan to kill a beloved service to push more people into google+. Hence it's counter-productive to mention the shutdown in negative terms, as that associates the two efforts in a way that underscores the latter interpretation.
- scott_s 14y ago
  If it came from an executive or a press release, perhaps I would have assumed that. But it came from an engineer.
  - roc 14y ago
    "an engineer", Chief Architect, same difference, right?
    - scott_s 14y ago
      Where I work, Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products. That happens higher than them. Their responsibility is engineering the architecture of their product. So, yes, I think it's accurate to refer to a Chief Architect as "an engineer."

mixedbit 14y ago

Maybe the intent was just to draw attention to his product? You liked the Reader? Now, that it is going to be killed, tell us what you liked about it so we can add these features to G+. And by the way, look how awesome we are, we care about your needs, you can already start using G+, don't wait until we add features from the Reader, because this will never happen.

libria 14y ago

I don't get it either. I mean, if he really wants to make me happy but can only build in the context of G+, make a "Reader" tab and open up Reader in an iframe that takes up 90% of the page (outer frame optional). There's nothing about G+'s layout (or mission?) that will be conducive to feed reading. This is like asking me what I like about burgers so you can make a better salad.