If they found a <i>good</i> way of incorporating RSS into Google+, that would certainly be an incentive to use Google+; but just adding RSS feeds to a circle in Google+, as this article suggests, would be terrible. Google+ (like Facebook and Twitter) works on a "forget by default" system, where, if you don't consciously make a choice to save an item for reading later, it gets lost off the bottom of the feed. Replacing Google Reader with that would be a bit like replacing a DVR with a system that broadcasts all your favourite TV shows at once.<p>I think if I wanted to disrupt social networking, I'd work on something like a DVR for social media shares (or, perhaps, a more socially-integrated service like Pocket), which allows you to specify certain content as content you don't want to miss.
This is a good idea. However, one thing I have learned from unsuccessfully pitching good ideas to very successful people/businesses is that the more successful they are, the less their decisions will make sense to outside observers. This is largely because their resources allow them to have different motivations for doing or not doing things than virtually anyone else.<p>Telling a wealthy person that you can make them alot of money, or in this case, telling a business that has hundreds of millions of users how to save a few million of them, isn't necessarily compelling to them. A company like Google has the luxury of deciding that a few million users aren't worth keeping for whatever reason, even though dismissing that number of users for <i>any</i> reason sounds absurd to most of us.
There's an assumption here that doing this would result in a material number of users for Google+. But I'm not sure it would: it's reasonably safe to assume that everyone using Google Reader knows about G+, and is either using it already or has decided to not use it. At best, what's proposed would convert some percentage of that latter group (maybe) over to using G+. It <i>might</i> be a couple million users if everything plays out well. It's probably less.<p>That sounds like a lot, but at the scale G+ and FB are competing, a few million (possible) users isn't worth allocating dev resources for. They're looking for things that move tens, or hundreds of millions of users. Some opportunities are just too small to pursue.
My problem is that G+ is unreadable. Every iteration they make it harder and harder to actually read the content. I completely gave up on their Android app for that reason. Most recently they switched the web site to arbitrary sized blocks in a 2d random layout using images wherever possible instead of truncated text. It is true that newspapers do this, but at least they have more readable content in each block. I had to switch G+ to single column view to at least make heads or tails of what is going on.<p>Reader was focussed on reading content and did a good job of that. Virtually every pixel on the screen was about reading content. Here is what G+ does with actual reading content highlighted in yellow <a href="http://i.imgur.com/ASKMSRv.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/ASKMSRv.png</a><p>Reader used to be the first tab in my first browser window. This meant I always had a tab open at Google and it was a single click to get into G+. Now I have to consciously choose to go to G+ which happens rarely.
If Google had announced the end of reader, but allowed you to integrate the RSS feeds into Google+, all the nerds would have just complained that Google was killing a good product to try and bolster a shitty one (not that I think G+ is shitty). It's always easy after the fact to say that Google could have done this to ease the passing of Reader, but face facts: There's nothing you can do on the internet where people won't complain. Deprecating Reader in favour of g+ would have been a cheap replacement at best, and at worst it could have been viewed as poisoning the water so you'll have to drink Fanta.
This makes the assumption that Google's goal with Google+ is just to syndicate content, something that clearly isn't the case. They want content created specifically for Google+ - if they wanted a firehose of data they certainly had the capability and time to allow third-parties to put data into the stream.<p>Whether or not Google's goal is to create a social network or get more users is up for debate, but this certainly wasn't simply overlooked.
Reader had ~single digit millions monthly actives, very likely less than ten million (<a href="http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google-Reader-have" rel="nofollow">http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google-Reader-have</a>). It's just not that many people (which is why Reader got cancelled after all).
While I agree it is an interesting idea as someone who uses Google+ a decent amount I would not have wanted non-user contexts mixed in anymore than what is already there (these are already present for a lot of brands etc). I am already starting to get annoyed with the "What's Hot" elements and such inside Google+ I would rather have more subscribed human content that algo picked or rss generated.<p>I think that moving that into its own interface _within_ Google+ would have been a great idea though.
I don't know how well it would have worked for Google (or not), but, personally, I am very, very "+1" on RSS feeds in social network streams as a general concept. No, you don't get the exact same experience that you get with a "conventional" RSS feed reader, but when your news stream can have arbitrary RSS/Atom delivered content, it opens up a lot of options.<p>This is why I was so happy that we <i>just</i> got RSS feed subscriptions incorporated into Quoddy[1] - our enterprise social network product. So many things that you might be interested in can be syndicated via RSS / Atom - new documents posted to a document management system, new customer records posted to a CRM system, etc. Personally I'm more excited about this feature than almost anything we've done lately.<p>What will be interesting, will be exploring how to utilize UI elements to give a user the ability to get the "best of both worlds" and view their content in a fashion akin to the way Google Reader (or other readers) work, OR view it "in stream" ala a G+ or Facebook style news stream. When you take a step back and look at it, in many ways, a "wall" or "stream" isn't that different than an "inbox", and one wonders if you can't find a neat way to collapse <i>all</i> of this "stuff" (email, rss feeds, social "status updates", etc.) into one interface.<p>Anyway, call me bullish on syndication, but I almost feel like we need a song titled <i>You Can't Stop RSS</i> set to the tune of Twisted Sister's <i>You Can't Stop Rock and Roll</i>.[2]<p>[1]: <a href="https://github.com/fogbeam/Quoddy/tree/prhodes" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/fogbeam/Quoddy/tree/prhodes</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaehBH7DtR4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaehBH7DtR4</a>
I see the logic, but given recent spying revelations, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to move further away from google and US based services, and certainly not an opportunity to get closer and more integrated. If I had a shred of trust left in both google and the USA's ability to protect and respect my data, I might have tried a G+ RSS solution. Nothing short of massive legislative change in the US would even begin to help me want to use such a service.<p>All a bit of a shame how this has turned out TBH. Although, the whole thing has caused me to educate myself and seek out alternatives rather then just dumbly sign up for things assuming there was little to be concerned about.<p>Sadly, just more drip, drip away from the US and towards using things like encryption and doing my own thing.<p>Come on American, what the hell happened? :(
With the lack of options available in Google+ to adjust the UI, I would not want to move my RSS over to G+. Rather, they could have expanded Google News to transition the feeds over.
It's not just the number of users. It's that people who were heavy Reader users are particularly valuable nodes in a network like Google+. They are more likely to draw other people to Google+ than the average user since they curate more content than the average user.
Another way to get millions of google+ users, stop plastering ads for it all over Google properties and instead make it useful.<p>No I don't want to use + on Youtube, no I don't want my search Google+ enabled. On the average week I probably get 5 or 6 requests to do something related to Google+. Worst of all most of the requests are modal dialogues that interrupt the flow of what I wanted to do.
After reading the title, I thought this was going to relate back to Google's involvement with the NSA spying program.<p>Think about it... what facebook user in their right mind would ditch facebook for google+ now?<p>They're both in bed with the NSA, and if that doesn't bother you (privacy concerns) you would probably never want to leave facebook in the first place.
Google better go back to basics.<p>They need to work on real honest not ad-driven search again.<p>Search quality is dwindling(I don't need 2 billion amazon and ebay listings on search results, Google!).<p>Months ago when I used duckduckgo I'd bounce right back to Google. Today I can use DDG without regrets.