3 ms·

"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

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