4 ms·

Regardless of how many products they have, they still have one less after shutting down Reader. I'd say the argument still stands.

coldtea 13y ago
>Regardless of how many products they have, they still have one less after shutting down Reader. I'd say the argument still stands. Not if, in the same period they "closed the Reader to in order to focus", they started more than one products, all around the map. If I tell you: "I stopped going to the gym in order to focus on my painting more. Oh, and I also started bowling, belly-dancing, snooker, and etching classes -- and I'm leaving next week for snorkeling in Thailand" then I'd argue that me stopping 1 thing does not not in the least mean I'm more focused now.
- TheCraiggers 13y ago
  That is fallacious. You're assuming they weren't going to start those other products anyway.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Google said "fewer products". Doesn't matter whether or not they were going to start those products anyway, what they're saying is incorrect.
    - chronic25 13y ago
      Posing to make this comment deeper
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Nothing fallacious about it. The argument is they did it to "focus better". You can not do something with the pretext of better focus and then do several other things that break that focus -- whether you were planning to do them anyway is irrelevant. To put it in some (arbitrary but isomorphic to the argument) numbers, increasing your focus by 5 points and decreasing it by 20 still leaves you with a decrease of 15. Yes, it's better than decreasing it by 25, but that's not the point -- it's a minor pedantic correction. A decrease of 15 is hardly "focusing".
DennisP 13y ago
Only if your measurement is the number of products. If you were to represent each product as a point in a multidimensional space of features, and measure according to how well they were clustered, then the existence of Reader would improve the clustering of Google's products, helping to counter the existence of products like self-driving cars.

coldtea 13y ago

>Regardless of how many products they have, they still have one less after shutting down Reader. I'd say the argument still stands. Not if, in the same period they "closed the Reader to in order to focus", they started more than one products, all around the map. If I tell you: "I stopped going to the gym in order to focus on my painting more. Oh, and I also started bowling, belly-dancing, snooker, and etching classes -- and I'm leaving next week for snorkeling in Thailand" then I'd argue that me stopping 1 thing does not not in the least mean I'm more focused now.

TheCraiggers 13y ago
That is fallacious. You're assuming they weren't going to start those other products anyway.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Google said "fewer products". Doesn't matter whether or not they were going to start those products anyway, what they're saying is incorrect.
  - chronic25 13y ago
    Posing to make this comment deeper
- coldtea 13y ago
  Nothing fallacious about it. The argument is they did it to "focus better". You can not do something with the pretext of better focus and then do several other things that break that focus -- whether you were planning to do them anyway is irrelevant. To put it in some (arbitrary but isomorphic to the argument) numbers, increasing your focus by 5 points and decreasing it by 20 still leaves you with a decrease of 15. Yes, it's better than decreasing it by 25, but that's not the point -- it's a minor pedantic correction. A decrease of 15 is hardly "focusing".

DennisP 13y ago

Only if your measurement is the number of products. If you were to represent each product as a point in a multidimensional space of features, and measure according to how well they were clustered, then the existence of Reader would improve the clustering of Google's products, helping to counter the existence of products like self-driving cars.