5 ms·

The Web is a small subset of the Internet. There are many other protocols to enable the sharing of data between individuals and platforms, and it looks like Go

The Web is a small subset of the Internet. There are many other protocols to enable the sharing of data between individuals and platforms, and it looks like Google wishes to deprecate at least some of those in favour of its own end-to-end solution. I think that killing off Reader in favour of G+ is the start of acceleration in that direction. I hope I'm wrong.

cromwellian 14y ago
First of all, the quote, from you, specifically says "open Web" not "open Internet" Secondly, Reader was not killed because of G+. If FriendFeed is finally killed off, will you say it was because Facebook needed the resources and engineers on a competing product? Consumers have moved on to desire the kinds of features that are inherent in services like Facebook, and RSS simply isn't suited to solving the problem of federated social networking. There is no open standard for this, remember, Google tried it with PubHubSubHub/WebFinger/OpenID/OAuth/ActivityStreams but it didn't work. I favor federated feeds as well (see my essay http://timepedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/decentralizing-web.html http://timepedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/decentralizing-web.htm...), but honestly, for me personally, RSS was a HUGE step back from what I had on USENET in the 80s with RN/TRN. Someone must create a new, open federated social networking platform, but honestly, you can't put the cart before the horse. Google tried that several times and failed. First, you've got to built a super successful platform consumers love, then you can standardize it. The history of doing it the other way is littered with failure. Remember OpenSocial? I don't think Google has lost sight of the Open Web, I think it just realized that you must focus on the end user design issues first if you want to be successful. Ignore this at your peril, look at the way consumers flock to native apps on mobile. They care about experiences, not implementation. If the "open web" specs don't do the job, then you need to create a product first that consumers show they want, and then work backwards to figure out how to fix the specs.
- duncan_bayne 14y ago
  You're right; I've corrected that. You're also correct that RSS doesn't solve the problem of federated social networking. It was never intended to. W.r.t. developing protocols for federated social networking: Google isn't interested; it would harm their bottom line if users on their systems could easily share content outside those systems. Hence why Google+ doesn't even offer an RSS feed. Do you really, hand-on-heart, think that Google would support a federated social media protocol on Google+ should such a thing come into being? Do you think they're planning to build such a protocol?
  - cromwellian 14y ago
    A central core feature of Google Wave was federation. Wave failed. Reason? Not because of federation, but because of consumer experience and confusion. If you look at G+, Google has taken a very very careful approach this time (after OpenSocial, Buzz, Wave, et al failed), building on it very incrementally, always concentrating on user experience at each step. Even to the extent that they don't have even have an API to post content to G+ programmatically. Whether or not it will eventually turn into some idea federated open network, I have no idea. But I would not take G+ as somehow Google dropping support for the open web. Google is a very large company with lots and lots of product, and company culture just doesn't change overnight. I'd love it if Google had done a disapora-like federated system. But honestly, if they had gone that route, we'd have threads all over the blog-sphere laughing at Google for yet another social networking failure. Those kinds of projects earn the love and adoration of the hacker community, but they don't get grandma, teens, and celebrities on your site. Want better counter-evidence? Look at WebRTC and Google Hangouts. Hangouts are a defining competitive advantage G+ has over all over social networks, and Google sponsors a spec that essentially makes them a commodity that anyone can implement now.
    - duncan_bayne 14y ago
      Hmmmm ... the fact that there is no API access, no RSS feed etc. doesn't strike me as a coincidence, or perhaps a consequence of a streamlined user experience. I think it's deliberate, & part of a long-term strategy. Clearly you don't though. Perhaps we should resume this conversation in five years time? :)

cromwellian 14y ago

First of all, the quote, from you, specifically says "open Web" not "open Internet" Secondly, Reader was not killed because of G+. If FriendFeed is finally killed off, will you say it was because Facebook needed the resources and engineers on a competing product? Consumers have moved on to desire the kinds of features that are inherent in services like Facebook, and RSS simply isn't suited to solving the problem of federated social networking. There is no open standard for this, remember, Google tried it with PubHubSubHub/WebFinger/OpenID/OAuth/ActivityStreams but it didn't work. I favor federated feeds as well (see my essay http://timepedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/decentralizing-web.html http://timepedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/decentralizing-web.htm...), but honestly, for me personally, RSS was a HUGE step back from what I had on USENET in the 80s with RN/TRN. Someone must create a new, open federated social networking platform, but honestly, you can't put the cart before the horse. Google tried that several times and failed. First, you've got to built a super successful platform consumers love, then you can standardize it. The history of doing it the other way is littered with failure. Remember OpenSocial? I don't think Google has lost sight of the Open Web, I think it just realized that you must focus on the end user design issues first if you want to be successful. Ignore this at your peril, look at the way consumers flock to native apps on mobile. They care about experiences, not implementation. If the "open web" specs don't do the job, then you need to create a product first that consumers show they want, and then work backwards to figure out how to fix the specs.

duncan_bayne 14y ago
You're right; I've corrected that. You're also correct that RSS doesn't solve the problem of federated social networking. It was never intended to. W.r.t. developing protocols for federated social networking: Google isn't interested; it would harm their bottom line if users on their systems could easily share content outside those systems. Hence why Google+ doesn't even offer an RSS feed. Do you really, hand-on-heart, think that Google would support a federated social media protocol on Google+ should such a thing come into being? Do you think they're planning to build such a protocol?
- cromwellian 14y ago
  A central core feature of Google Wave was federation. Wave failed. Reason? Not because of federation, but because of consumer experience and confusion. If you look at G+, Google has taken a very very careful approach this time (after OpenSocial, Buzz, Wave, et al failed), building on it very incrementally, always concentrating on user experience at each step. Even to the extent that they don't have even have an API to post content to G+ programmatically. Whether or not it will eventually turn into some idea federated open network, I have no idea. But I would not take G+ as somehow Google dropping support for the open web. Google is a very large company with lots and lots of product, and company culture just doesn't change overnight. I'd love it if Google had done a disapora-like federated system. But honestly, if they had gone that route, we'd have threads all over the blog-sphere laughing at Google for yet another social networking failure. Those kinds of projects earn the love and adoration of the hacker community, but they don't get grandma, teens, and celebrities on your site. Want better counter-evidence? Look at WebRTC and Google Hangouts. Hangouts are a defining competitive advantage G+ has over all over social networks, and Google sponsors a spec that essentially makes them a commodity that anyone can implement now.
  - duncan_bayne 14y ago
    Hmmmm ... the fact that there is no API access, no RSS feed etc. doesn't strike me as a coincidence, or perhaps a consequence of a streamlined user experience. I think it's deliberate, & part of a long-term strategy. Clearly you don't though. Perhaps we should resume this conversation in five years time? :)