4 ms·

A good deal of useful thinking involves models, and I don't particularly understand the anger that results. Google isn't a monopolist in this situation either,

by rz2k 14y ago

A good deal of useful thinking involves models, and I don't particularly understand the anger that results. Google isn't a monopolist in this situation either, but it is useful to understand pricing dynamics where there is no competitor. It sheds light on price discrimination with coupons, for example. Krugman mischaracterizes the article[1], since it does not claim that Reader was crucial infrastructure, but he doesn't argue that it is crucial infrastructure himself either. They both talk about the dynamics of a product that has network effects and becomes a public good. We generally know from cognitive sciences how we economize in situations like having a reliably knowledgeable colleague. This has served as a counterpoint to the silly arguments about how Google is making us stupid, but nevertheless says that the specialization in our expertise that it facilitates has Google search's continued availability as a vital component. The original article talks about whether discontinuations will cause users to be more cautious about adopting services that create dependencies, and whether it will inhibit the success of new ones that involve network effects. >Google wants us to use its services in ways that provide it with interesting and valuable information, and eyeballs. If a particular Google experiment isn't cutting it in that category, then Google may feel justified in axing it. >But that makes it increasingly difficult for Google to have success with new services. Why commit to using and coming to rely on something new if it might be yanked away at some future date? This is especially problematic for "social" apps that rely on network effects. Even a crummy social service may thrive if it obtains a critical mass. Anyway, the important issues aren't perfectly typified by Reader, but it is a situation people are familiar with at this moment. Personally, I think it is worth thinking about why more of the shuttered projects haven't been sold off or at least open sourced like Wave. Combine that with profitable businesses that are acquired for the talent, then neglected to death, and it sounds like a lot of effort is being needlessly trashed. It is not difficult to imagine that if books.google.com were able to give even more liberal access to its library, that struggling municipalities would be even less willing to fund their libraries. This hypothetical would be unambiguously good for the world if it lead to more access to information, but one can also imagine that this hypothetical could also lead to a dependency that was itself vulnerable. There are a lot of things that won't lead to the end of civilization, but they can still be nevertheless worse than an alternate outcome. [1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/03/utilities http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/03/utilitie...

moskie 14y ago
But that makes it increasingly difficult for Google to have success with new services. Why commit to using and coming to rely on something new if it might be yanked away at some future date? This perspective just boggles my mind. If anyone decides not to use a Google product because it could "disappear just like Reader" or something, they are shooting themselves in the foot. First, any product (especially web sites), made by Google or otherwise, can disappear. If it's not a profitable product/market, it will go away, whether it's run by Google or some guy in a basement. Secondly, even if you suspect a product will eventually disappear, why not chose to use a superior product while it's around? This is especially true for something as inconsequential and fungible as an RSS reader. I mean, in retrospect, do hard-core Reader users wish they could go back in time and chose a different product instead of Reader for all these years? What would be the benefit of that? Whatever choice you made could have also disappeared. And if your answer is that you would have still used Reader, than that's all the evidence you need to know you shouldn't hesitate to use a new Google product, if it's the best option.
- Apocryphon 14y ago
  People still are unused to the idea of planned digital obsolescence.
  - arkem 14y ago
    I don't think you can call it "planned digital obsolescence" since "planned obsolescence" implies that the provider had a specific life span in mind when launching the product. Google Reader is being shutdown but I doubt that when they launched they said to themselves "We will run this service until 2013 and then shut it down". Without that plan I don't think it can be planned obsolescence.
- rz2k 14y ago
  Perhaps the stumbling block here is that Reader is such a bad example, since it is mostly for consuming content non-interactively, and applications that use the Reader infrastructure won't have a difficult time replacing it. However, that neglects the importance of network effects for Google, developers and users. Maybe you recall a chapter in Cannery Row where a gopher sets up in a perfect vacant lot full of everything it needs and without predators. (Or not, and I suppose the value of allusions rest on the network effects of a common canon) The gopher flourishes, but ultimately gives up because no female gophers ever appear, and it returns to a garden with gopher traps set out. The allegory is an accessible way to explain network effects, something that is often lost in the entrepreneurial rhetoric, where companies succeed or not regardless of the market environment or context of the community they foster or don't. When choosing a large development platform, anyone reasonable doesn't only look at the tools and languages, but also considers the community and the market. Take for example Blackberry or the Windows Phone. I don't think developers believe that anyone owes them certain tools, or even a guarantee of a certain number of sales. However, these platforms will only get good talent if there is a credible marketability of anything they develop. Hypothetically, lets assume that Visual Studio works really well for developing on Windows Phone and is better than any other set of tools for mobile development. Then let's assume that in 2015, Microsoft stops creating phone operating systems because the phones remain unpopular. A lot of developers have spent a couple years learning skills, much of which they can use elsewhere. If they'd been developing for Android or iOS, they would have even more skills that would be useful elsewhere. Now, someone shouts at you, "So you're saying that Microsoft shouldn't have released such a good set of tools?!" The question itself is silly. The problem is not reducible to a set of tools, or evangelizing to developers, or confidence in the platform, or advertising to consumers. Assumptions about all of these together go into developers' decision making today, and it isn't even that deterministic, since there's an error component to how these perceptions that aren't based on accurate future-prediction, that will itself decide the future success of the platform. The original Economist post didn't so much talk about Google owing anyone anything, but addressed the confidence problem. If people believe that a product won't be around very long, it won't get talented developers which won't attract users, which will lead to the product being canceled, or vice versa. Let's say you want to put a small module on your webpage, and you are considering Google Gadgets. It might be more difficult to replicate the same functionality using HTML5. Are you worse off, because Google Gadgets is available? Google doesn't owe you any guarantee about the longevity of the system, but it would be more valuable right now if you could believe that Google Gadgets will still be around in a couple years, and your payoff matrix says that you would be worse off if you choose Google Gadgets over something else and it is later canceled.

by rz2k 14y ago

moskie 14y ago

But that makes it increasingly difficult for Google to have success with new services. Why commit to using and coming to rely on something new if it might be yanked away at some future date? This perspective just boggles my mind. If anyone decides not to use a Google product because it could "disappear just like Reader" or something, they are shooting themselves in the foot. First, any product (especially web sites), made by Google or otherwise, can disappear. If it's not a profitable product/market, it will go away, whether it's run by Google or some guy in a basement. Secondly, even if you suspect a product will eventually disappear, why not chose to use a superior product while it's around? This is especially true for something as inconsequential and fungible as an RSS reader. I mean, in retrospect, do hard-core Reader users wish they could go back in time and chose a different product instead of Reader for all these years? What would be the benefit of that? Whatever choice you made could have also disappeared. And if your answer is that you would have still used Reader, than that's all the evidence you need to know you shouldn't hesitate to use a new Google product, if it's the best option.

Apocryphon 14y ago
People still are unused to the idea of planned digital obsolescence.
- arkem 14y ago
  I don't think you can call it "planned digital obsolescence" since "planned obsolescence" implies that the provider had a specific life span in mind when launching the product. Google Reader is being shutdown but I doubt that when they launched they said to themselves "We will run this service until 2013 and then shut it down". Without that plan I don't think it can be planned obsolescence.
rz2k 14y ago
Perhaps the stumbling block here is that Reader is such a bad example, since it is mostly for consuming content non-interactively, and applications that use the Reader infrastructure won't have a difficult time replacing it. However, that neglects the importance of network effects for Google, developers and users. Maybe you recall a chapter in Cannery Row where a gopher sets up in a perfect vacant lot full of everything it needs and without predators. (Or not, and I suppose the value of allusions rest on the network effects of a common canon) The gopher flourishes, but ultimately gives up because no female gophers ever appear, and it returns to a garden with gopher traps set out. The allegory is an accessible way to explain network effects, something that is often lost in the entrepreneurial rhetoric, where companies succeed or not regardless of the market environment or context of the community they foster or don't. When choosing a large development platform, anyone reasonable doesn't only look at the tools and languages, but also considers the community and the market. Take for example Blackberry or the Windows Phone. I don't think developers believe that anyone owes them certain tools, or even a guarantee of a certain number of sales. However, these platforms will only get good talent if there is a credible marketability of anything they develop. Hypothetically, lets assume that Visual Studio works really well for developing on Windows Phone and is better than any other set of tools for mobile development. Then let's assume that in 2015, Microsoft stops creating phone operating systems because the phones remain unpopular. A lot of developers have spent a couple years learning skills, much of which they can use elsewhere. If they'd been developing for Android or iOS, they would have even more skills that would be useful elsewhere. Now, someone shouts at you, "So you're saying that Microsoft shouldn't have released such a good set of tools?!" The question itself is silly. The problem is not reducible to a set of tools, or evangelizing to developers, or confidence in the platform, or advertising to consumers. Assumptions about all of these together go into developers' decision making today, and it isn't even that deterministic, since there's an error component to how these perceptions that aren't based on accurate future-prediction, that will itself decide the future success of the platform. The original Economist post didn't so much talk about Google owing anyone anything, but addressed the confidence problem. If people believe that a product won't be around very long, it won't get talented developers which won't attract users, which will lead to the product being canceled, or vice versa. Let's say you want to put a small module on your webpage, and you are considering Google Gadgets. It might be more difficult to replicate the same functionality using HTML5. Are you worse off, because Google Gadgets is available? Google doesn't owe you any guarantee about the longevity of the system, but it would be more valuable right now if you could believe that Google Gadgets will still be around in a couple years, and your payoff matrix says that you would be worse off if you choose Google Gadgets over something else and it is later canceled.