5 ms·

Didn't know it existed... that said.. this is how you discontinue a product. Say sorry, send the client their data, recommend alternatives. Well done. Far bett

by bobsy 13y ago

Didn't know it existed... that said.. this is how you discontinue a product. Say sorry, send the client their data, recommend alternatives. Well done. Far better than past attempts by Yahoo, Google, Aqui-hires who shutter a product and leave it to clients to figure out how to get their data out.

bornhuetter 13y ago
"Say sorry, send the client their data, recommend alternatives." That's exactly what Google do, and they get ripped to shreds.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  He missed a point: don't let the service continue limping along and become a vital part of someone's toolkit.
  - zorpner 13y ago
    Precisely correct -- the real issue is that Google _didn't_ kill Reader in this manner. They subsidized its existence with their other products, undermining the support of other feed readers on the market, until they decided not to.
    - enjo 13y ago
      So the obvious solution is to let it continue to limp along then? Google did the right thing. They didn't want to invest anymore into it. They shut it down. They gave everyone on the planet TONS of notice. They provided the data. Now we have fun things like Feedly to take its place.
    - chaz 13y ago
      RSS was already on its way out -- on a steady decline since 2006. Google Reader peaked in 2011 and was on a decline since then, too. Though I generally stopped using RSS a few years ago, I do think it's the best reader out there. But the perception that RSS and all of the competitors were killed off by Google is, at best, hyperbole. http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=google+reader#q=google%20reader%2C%20%20rss&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=google+reader#q=googl...
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  I must have been missing the part where Google recommended real alternative to Reader.
- jbigelow76 13y ago
  But 37signals closed Breeze because it didn't hit a critical mass of customers. Google can't say the same thing about many cough Reader cough of the products they close down. That's why Google gets ripped to shreds.
  - MartinMond 13y ago
    I believe the number of customers necessary for reaching "critical mass" is different for Google than for 37signals than for a new SaaS company that just started out. Also Breeze had customers (that paid for it) while Google Reader had users that got it for free.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    It's not about critical mass, it's about profitability, for both companies.
    - jbigelow76 13y ago
      That's not necessarily true for either company. Remember when 37signals sold Sortfolio to focus more on core products? Sortfolio made over $200K in profit in a years time[1]. And Google made no attempt to monetize Reader at all so they can't say it was only about profitability. Companies make strategic decisions all the time even at the expense of profit when warranted. [1] http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3172-sortfolio-going-once-going-twice http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3172-sortfolio-going-once-goi...
      - dylangs1030 13y ago
        Yes, but profitability also delineates users from customers. One will naturally get more attention than another. Comparing Google Reader to 37signals' Breeze is comparing apples to oranges, and it's not fair to subsequently conclude Google didn't do everything it could when it gave a longer sunset, but no alternatives. That's the one thing they didn't do, and their users were free.
        13y ago
parfe 13y ago
Right in Google's announcement: "Users and developers interested in RSS alternatives can export their data, including their subscriptions, with Google Takeout over the course of the next four months." http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cl... How is 37signals' announcement any better?
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  Yup, google has an engineering team dedicated to exactly that: http://www.dataliberation.org/ http://www.dataliberation.org/
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- pretz 13y ago
  37signals recommended functioning alternative services, not just data export.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    So them saving users a Google Search for the alternatives was all it took to clear them? Damn, if only big G had known, they could have saved themselves a lot of flak. (Actually, it wouldn't have mattered. Don't kid yourself.)
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    Yes, but that's not really Google's responsibility. They deliberately gave a three month sunset for users to find another solution. That's entirely the point of a sunset. Their product is also free, so it's not like they're hurting businesses or real customers by not helping them find alternatives. They're not really obligated to even do anything at all - it was a free service. If they were being paid it would make more sense.
    - deleted 13y ago
keithsl 13y ago
I would imagine a product that you paid for would be more willing to work with you than free products.
dylangs1030 13y ago
I agree that this is the ideal of how to shut down a product, but I don't believe you're being fair with Google. They provided everything you could ask for in their announcement of Google Reader's retirement[1]: 1. Sympathy with users who still use Reader. 2. A simple way to save all data to transition to another product. 3. A three month sunset, which they are not obligated to give. You're right in that this announcement is missing one little line about alternatives to Reader. But there's two reasons why I don't think that matters - first, the explosion of alternatives mainly happened after that announcement, when alternatives like NewsBlur really came into mainstream knowledge. Secondly, Google doesn't really need to suggest alternatives when there's a sunset. Sure they could, but you could also just google it (no humor intended). You have three months to find it on your own, I think I can forgive them for not suggesting alternatives that in my opinion weren't even as mature as Reader yet (with the possible exception of Feedly). [1]: http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2013/03/powering-down-google-reader.html http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2013/03/powering-down-googl...

by bobsy 13y ago

bornhuetter 13y ago

"Say sorry, send the client their data, recommend alternatives." That's exactly what Google do, and they get ripped to shreds.

chris_wot 13y ago
He missed a point: don't let the service continue limping along and become a vital part of someone's toolkit.
- zorpner 13y ago
  Precisely correct -- the real issue is that Google _didn't_ kill Reader in this manner. They subsidized its existence with their other products, undermining the support of other feed readers on the market, until they decided not to.
  - enjo 13y ago
    So the obvious solution is to let it continue to limp along then? Google did the right thing. They didn't want to invest anymore into it. They shut it down. They gave everyone on the planet TONS of notice. They provided the data. Now we have fun things like Feedly to take its place.
  - chaz 13y ago
    RSS was already on its way out -- on a steady decline since 2006. Google Reader peaked in 2011 and was on a decline since then, too. Though I generally stopped using RSS a few years ago, I do think it's the best reader out there. But the perception that RSS and all of the competitors were killed off by Google is, at best, hyperbole. http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=google+reader#q=google%20reader%2C%20%20rss&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=google+reader#q=googl...
levosmetalo 13y ago
I must have been missing the part where Google recommended real alternative to Reader.
jbigelow76 13y ago
But 37signals closed Breeze because it didn't hit a critical mass of customers. Google can't say the same thing about many cough Reader cough of the products they close down. That's why Google gets ripped to shreds.
- MartinMond 13y ago
  I believe the number of customers necessary for reaching "critical mass" is different for Google than for 37signals than for a new SaaS company that just started out. Also Breeze had customers (that paid for it) while Google Reader had users that got it for free.
- smackfu 13y ago
  It's not about critical mass, it's about profitability, for both companies.
  - jbigelow76 13y ago
    That's not necessarily true for either company. Remember when 37signals sold Sortfolio to focus more on core products? Sortfolio made over $200K in profit in a years time[1]. And Google made no attempt to monetize Reader at all so they can't say it was only about profitability. Companies make strategic decisions all the time even at the expense of profit when warranted. [1] http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3172-sortfolio-going-once-going-twice http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3172-sortfolio-going-once-goi...
    - dylangs1030 13y ago
      Yes, but profitability also delineates users from customers. One will naturally get more attention than another. Comparing Google Reader to 37signals' Breeze is comparing apples to oranges, and it's not fair to subsequently conclude Google didn't do everything it could when it gave a longer sunset, but no alternatives. That's the one thing they didn't do, and their users were free.
      - 13y ago

parfe 13y ago

Right in Google's announcement: "Users and developers interested in RSS alternatives can export their data, including their subscriptions, with Google Takeout over the course of the next four months." http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cl... How is 37signals' announcement any better?

SkyMarshal 13y ago
Yup, google has an engineering team dedicated to exactly that: http://www.dataliberation.org/ http://www.dataliberation.org/
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
pretz 13y ago
37signals recommended functioning alternative services, not just data export.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  So them saving users a Google Search for the alternatives was all it took to clear them? Damn, if only big G had known, they could have saved themselves a lot of flak. (Actually, it wouldn't have mattered. Don't kid yourself.)
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  Yes, but that's not really Google's responsibility. They deliberately gave a three month sunset for users to find another solution. That's entirely the point of a sunset. Their product is also free, so it's not like they're hurting businesses or real customers by not helping them find alternatives. They're not really obligated to even do anything at all - it was a free service. If they were being paid it would make more sense.
  - deleted 13y ago

keithsl 13y ago

I would imagine a product that you paid for would be more willing to work with you than free products.

dylangs1030 13y ago

I agree that this is the ideal of how to shut down a product, but I don't believe you're being fair with Google. They provided everything you could ask for in their announcement of Google Reader's retirement[1]: 1. Sympathy with users who still use Reader. 2. A simple way to save all data to transition to another product. 3. A three month sunset, which they are not obligated to give. You're right in that this announcement is missing one little line about alternatives to Reader. But there's two reasons why I don't think that matters - first, the explosion of alternatives mainly happened after that announcement, when alternatives like NewsBlur really came into mainstream knowledge. Secondly, Google doesn't really need to suggest alternatives when there's a sunset. Sure they could, but you could also just google it (no humor intended). You have three months to find it on your own, I think I can forgive them for not suggesting alternatives that in my opinion weren't even as mature as Reader yet (with the possible exception of Feedly). [1]: http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2013/03/powering-down-google-reader.html http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2013/03/powering-down-googl...