4 ms·

There's a difference between "use" and "rely on," and I think one would have to be a fool to not factor in a startup's viability (as best as possible) when deci

by pseut 14y ago

There's a difference between "use" and "rely on," and I think one would have to be a fool to not factor in a startup's viability (as best as possible) when deciding whether or not to integrate its product into one's workflow. If you use dropbox, do you use it the same way now as you did when it was in beta? Or do you trust it more now? If you don't use dropbox, I'm sure you can think of similar examples that make the same point. For various reasons (that have nothing to do with their viability as a company) I don't use Evernote and didn't use reader and I'm not going to use keep. But I think it's fair to consider google's track record with similar products over the last decade when debating whether or not to use keep.

dragonwriter 14y ago
> But I think it's fair to consider google's track record with similar products over the last decade when debating whether or not to use keep. How is a standalone, non-monetized product like Reader similar to a feature of Google Drive (one of the core elements of the paid Google Apps.)
- pseut 14y ago
  Reader is viewed as standalone now. IIRC it was introduced pretty soon after google accounts were and not long after gmail itself, and I remember thinking about it as part of a nebulous "google account package." Now obviously in hindsight I was wrong, but to act as though it is obvious now that "keep" is going to be around and updated for a long time is absurd. All of these products: reader, wave, buzz, notebooks, alerts, feedburner; looked like they'd be around and supported for a while when they were introduced. I don's see how monetized vs. non-monetized is a relevant issue, unless I am completely off in how much of google's revenue comes from advertising. Google search is just as free as reader was and was just as non-monetized at first. I don't think that a significant percent of google's revenues come from Drive, but if you have contradictory data I'll concede the point that Drive is likely to be around in some form. That still doesn't prevent them from introducing and removing features of google drive; features like Keep. Edit (forgot one thing): the other point illustrated by reader is that google is more focused than it was 8 years ago. I can't imagine a product like reader lasting 8 years if it were introduced today.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > Edit (forgot one thing): the other point illustrated by reader is that google is more focused than it was 8 years ago. I can't imagine a product like reader lasting 8 years if it were introduced today. I can't see a product like Reader (in terms of its weak connection to any coherent long-term Google strategy, not its primary features) being released by Google today. Which is, incidentally, just another way of saying that cancellation of products that originated before Google's "more wood behind fewer arrows" focus isn't really a good yardstick for Google's commitment to products released under that new regime, for reasons which should be pretty obvious.
    - pseut 14y ago
      I'm not sure if I agree, but that's a fair point. But, again, it wasn't obvious 8 years ago that reader wasn't part of google's long-term strategy. They had gmail, blogger, sites, picasa, etc; all of which could be part of an "open-web" strategy that they've since moved away from.

by pseut 14y ago

dragonwriter 14y ago

> But I think it's fair to consider google's track record with similar products over the last decade when debating whether or not to use keep. How is a standalone, non-monetized product like Reader similar to a feature of Google Drive (one of the core elements of the paid Google Apps.)

pseut 14y ago
Reader is viewed as standalone now. IIRC it was introduced pretty soon after google accounts were and not long after gmail itself, and I remember thinking about it as part of a nebulous "google account package." Now obviously in hindsight I was wrong, but to act as though it is obvious now that "keep" is going to be around and updated for a long time is absurd. All of these products: reader, wave, buzz, notebooks, alerts, feedburner; looked like they'd be around and supported for a while when they were introduced. I don's see how monetized vs. non-monetized is a relevant issue, unless I am completely off in how much of google's revenue comes from advertising. Google search is just as free as reader was and was just as non-monetized at first. I don't think that a significant percent of google's revenues come from Drive, but if you have contradictory data I'll concede the point that Drive is likely to be around in some form. That still doesn't prevent them from introducing and removing features of google drive; features like Keep. Edit (forgot one thing): the other point illustrated by reader is that google is more focused than it was 8 years ago. I can't imagine a product like reader lasting 8 years if it were introduced today.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > Edit (forgot one thing): the other point illustrated by reader is that google is more focused than it was 8 years ago. I can't imagine a product like reader lasting 8 years if it were introduced today. I can't see a product like Reader (in terms of its weak connection to any coherent long-term Google strategy, not its primary features) being released by Google today. Which is, incidentally, just another way of saying that cancellation of products that originated before Google's "more wood behind fewer arrows" focus isn't really a good yardstick for Google's commitment to products released under that new regime, for reasons which should be pretty obvious.
  - pseut 14y ago
    I'm not sure if I agree, but that's a fair point. But, again, it wasn't obvious 8 years ago that reader wasn't part of google's long-term strategy. They had gmail, blogger, sites, picasa, etc; all of which could be part of an "open-web" strategy that they've since moved away from.