TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Finale for Now on Google's Self-Inflicted Trust Problem

83 pointsby watchdogtimerabout 12 years ago

16 comments

bsimpsonabout 12 years ago
Google's been picked on a lot over Reader, but it's a microcosm of the entire web services industry. We've developed a culture over the last two decades of launching compelling new services without a clear revenue model in a land-grab for users. Many software frameworks utilize lazy loading, whereby they defer the execution of expensive operations until the last possible minute. Our business culture lazy-loads revenue models. We set up a product, hope for enough users, then hope to monetize those users effectively. Without a compelling product or an audience to consume it, a business model is useless, so we've optimized that out to focus on the bare minimum.<p>There's an implicit assumption in all of this that the perceived value of a free service outweighs the potential costs of the service eventually failing in the user's eyes, that they'll keep coming back for something free and cool every time we ship it. As an industry, we haven't addressed the risk of crying wolf. At what point do enough consumers say "I'm going to wait until this has traction" before they're willing to invest their time and their hearts into the services we build? If the wait-and-see crowd grows large enough, it could seriously impact our ability to launch minimum-viable-products on the hope they'll monetize later.
评论 #5430045 未加载
erichoceanabout 12 years ago
We're five years and billions of dollars of wealth destroyed from the following Google headline:<p><i>Google to re-focus on it's core competency in search, in bid to regain competitiveness and re-ignite growth.</i><p>Remember the good old days when Google's mission was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"? Someday, they'll get back to that. For now, it's clone Facebook! Stat!<p>Google Reader organized RSS feeds -- information. That was the old Google, the old mission statement, the old focus. That's why Larry killed it. Someday, Google will swing back, because that's actually why we all like Google anyway. Hopefully, it won't be too late.
评论 #5431127 未加载
hugofirthabout 12 years ago
The Google Reader furore reached embarrassing levels of absurdity days ago. I have attempted many times to formulate my feelings on the matter into words (for the sake of balance if nothing else) so here goes nothing:<p>The rage about the death of reader has been engendered and encouraged by over-zealous bloggers and early adopters, who placed a personal agenda ahead of sensible appraisal of events. A breach of the trust placed in them by the wider user base who look to them for guidance.<p>--------<p>Their temper tantrum has achieved several things:<p>--------<p>- Underscoring the severe issues with citizen journalism, where influence and weight is placed in the words of those who have no code of ethics or conduct to adhere to. I was particularly taken aback by what I consider to be an unprofessional article by Om Malik: <a href="http://gigaom.com/2013/03/20/sorry-google-you-can-keep-it-to-yourself/" rel="nofollow">http://gigaom.com/2013/03/20/sorry-google-you-can-keep-it-to...</a><p>- Riding roughshod over the launch of interesting Google products such as Keep and The Drive API. Ironically the people who say they would not use Keep because they could not trust it to be around in x years time are arguably the ones who, by drowning launch coverage in unrelated negative feedback, contribute most to the likelihood of that outcome. In this way - the prophecy becomes self fulfilling, and a lot of self-important people get to pat themselves on the back for 'getting it right'.<p>- Highlighting the reality that almost no tech products live on in the same form ad infinitum. Old systems built upon old technologies make way for new systems built upon new technologies. This iterative process has long been the life blood of the developing platform that is the internet. This is a good thing - this process gave us Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Maps, Foursquare &#38; Reddit from the ashes of such things as MySpace, Digg, MultiMap &#38; Alta Vista. Far worse would be the continued life of an old and increasing unused technology to pander to a small but influential community. Doing that would be a waste of Google's engineering talent and by extension a disservice to it's wider user base. IE 6 anyone ?<p>- Highlighting the need for data portability and transparency. This is a good thing - In my opinion the only good thing to come out of this childish whining session. The thing is, Google already caters to this need as well as any, and far better than most, major internet tech firms. Therefore is doesn't seem rational or sensible to lynch them on these grounds either.<p>--------<p>The aforementioned temper tantrum has notably NOT achieved one thing:<p>--------<p>- Persuading Google to continue to actively support and develop Google Reader.<p>Some facts to finish off:<p>Google is a company, with a responsibility (a legal one) to protect the interests of it's shareholders.<p>It makes good business sense for Google to frequently kill off experiments. Allowing them to re focus engineering talent on yet more experiments.<p>Everyone enjoys the innovations that come from Google's experimental culture (G-Mail etc...). However - Google are not prescient ... they cannot always accurately predict what will be useful to the widest audience along the path to their eventual goal of making all the word's information accessible. In order to be right some of the time, Google, like everybody else, has to be wrong some of the time too. If they did not recognise when they were wrong and account for it then their pace of innovation would grind to a halt under the weight of their own legacy support.<p>When operating for profit on finite resources you can NEVER EVER EVER have your cake and eat it too.<p>RSS was and is a dead technology. Bloggers telling me otherwise (no matter how loudly, and with what ridiculous hyperbole) is akin to musicians telling me that the CD is still alive and well. I don't care ... neither do most other people ... HMV is still shutting down!<p>--------<p>I desperately hope that someone with a louder voice than I possess manages to get some traction when they inevitably say: "Go home internets, you're drunk."
评论 #5430726 未加载
评论 #5430989 未加载
评论 #5430867 未加载
Shankabout 12 years ago
I'm really starting to get annoyed at the whole "whelp, Google Reader died, therefore everything else is unsafe" mantra being carried by the tech industry as of late. Sure, it was worth mentioning early in the game (and more importantly once), but at this point it's become a bandwagon.<p>The press is declaring Google Reader a sign of things to come, but for the average user this has little effect. If we assume Google wasn't lying, and the users were dropping off, it makes sense for them to cut off a product that wasn't being actively developed in the first place. I'm a Reader fan, and I hate that it shut down, but that's beside the point - Google is trying to build new, better products, not let old ones fester without support or development.<p>This doesn't even tackle the fact that Keep isn't a true Evernote competitor. It's more of a supplement/addition to Evernote. For once, a Gizmodo article is relevant here: <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5991723/6-obvious-evernote-features-google-keep-cant-replace" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5991723/6-obvious-evernote-features-googl...</a>
评论 #5429696 未加载
评论 #5430099 未加载
评论 #5429987 未加载
评论 #5430281 未加载
评论 #5430334 未加载
评论 #5429879 未加载
评论 #5431155 未加载
评论 #5429687 未加载
cromwellianabout 12 years ago
No one can predict ahead of time what will be a success, and what won't. That's the beauty of making lots of bets, and having the fittest survive. There's no formula for success, no matter how many business gurus write articles saying otherwise. You try an experiment, you collect data, you iterate. You climb lots of mountains, sometimes you climb the wrong ones.<p>Google perceives itself as a technology company. Hire smart people, try lots of things, most of them will fail. Some will stick. What people are bashing Google over is what collectively, angels and venture capitals do every day, only this time, the venture capitalist is Google, and they are investing in oodles of their own internal projects.<p>Why do this? To avoid the Innovators Dilemma.<p>IMHO, the best thing we can do to guard against the downsides of disruption is to ensure transparency of data. You should expect products to die every couple of years. Reader outlasted most at 8 years. How long will Pinterest be around? Or Vine? Path?<p>The problem today is that most companies are not transparent, they are building siloed clouds, and so when they die, content dies with them.<p>Worse is non-textual data, like books, music, and film. Not only do you have siloed clouds, you have heavy use of DRM, which means purchases are non-transferrable, often even if the company themselves wants it to be.<p>The lesson is, invest your energy in supporting services with data transparency. Demand it. Not just from Google, but from Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, et al.
SeanDavabout 12 years ago
Besides search and gmail, I have no intention of ever using another Google offering again. I also now regularly back up up gmail using Thunderbird just in case Google does something stupid there as well.
评论 #5429605 未加载
TillEabout 12 years ago
&#62; and whether Google has hurt its reputation as 'organizer of all the worlds information.'<p>This is my biggest issue with Google, past the immediate concerns about the Reader shutdown. Their new "focus" strategy sounds suspiciously like putting all their eggs in one G+ basket, regardless of whether it's a good fit for the problem at hand.<p>Spreading out lead them to create lots of good products that served all sorts of niches - the loudest outcry about Reader has come not from tech nerds, but from journalists of every stripe. Keep eliminating niche products, and soon enough it adds up to a large chunk of your audience, each of which had a different need that Google decided wasn't important enough to serve. There's value in diversity.
评论 #5430056 未加载
评论 #5429885 未加载
moleculeabout 12 years ago
The speed w/ which Google deployed, and then discontinued Google Buzz discouraged the adoption of Google+ for many folks, myself included.<p>&#62; Launched February 9, 2010 &#62; Current status Discontinued December 15, 2011<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz</a>
评论 #5429760 未加载
thomholwerdaabout 12 years ago
Google Reader has been active for 8 years. That's longer than most technology products. In addition, there are countless alternatives to choose from, and you can easily get your data out of Reader and move to one of those countless alternatives.<p>This whole thing has been so overblown. It's like everyone is bored or something.
评论 #5430159 未加载
评论 #5429724 未加载
mark_l_watsonabout 12 years ago
Blogger seems like a direct competitor to Google+<p>Does it seem unrealistic to worry that Google might cut that? It is easy to export data from Blogger to other blogging systems (I just moved off of Blogger), so at least good for Google for making it easy to export data from their products.
nellabout 12 years ago
The reason why the hoopla about Google Reader shutdown won't die is that bloggers and online journalists will lose readership.
Tichyabout 12 years ago
Is there any indication that non-Google services are likely to have a longer expected lifetime than Google services? I don't think so... If services going extinct bothers you, the only sane alternative seems to be non-cloud services based on open standards.<p>Bashing Google seems silly...
评论 #5431594 未加载
lingbenabout 12 years ago
really shocking to see the extent of myopia over at google, for 'smart people' they are acting incredibly dumb
评论 #5429630 未加载
lnanek2about 12 years ago
Wonder how long until they shut down Keep with everyone having put a lot into using it. We should start a web site for pooling bets...
评论 #5429877 未加载
deeloweabout 12 years ago
Did everyone forget about this? <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-wood-behind-fewer-arrows.html" rel="nofollow">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-wood-behind-fewe...</a>
at-fates-handsabout 12 years ago
I've attempted to stay away from Google products mainly because the customer service or support of their products is horrendous.<p>That being said, I wish they would either better evaluate the popularity of their products and monetize them, or simply not allow them out into the wild for people to use and then kill it a year later regardless of adoption.