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.

Lockdown

625 pointsby mh_almost 12 years ago

40 comments

josteinkalmost 12 years ago
This has to be the first ever Marco post I&#x27;ve read which didn&#x27;t leave me wanting to toss sharp items at my monitors.<p>I actually fully agree with him on this. The open web is increasingly being threatened and locked down. We need to oppose that.
评论 #5983612 未加载
评论 #5983974 未加载
评论 #5984273 未加载
评论 #5986671 未加载
mmahemoffalmost 12 years ago
<i>&quot;It was just running, quietly serving a vital role for a lot of people.&quot;</i><p>Yes, but it wasn&#x27;t in Google&#x27;s commercial interest. Running Reader as a &quot;side project&quot; is not just distracting to senior management, but also creates legal, technical, and reputation risks which can bite back on their much larger businesses.<p>It&#x27;s hard for most of us to comprehend, but ready-made revenues of a few million bucks, even if it was $100M (unlikely), is not of interest to Google unless it&#x27;s growing fast. Which RSS, isn&#x27;t.<p>Welcome to Extremistan. Black Swans like Google do things that aren&#x27;t intuitive.<p><i>&quot;The bigger problem is that they’ve abandoned interoperability. RSS, semantic markup, microformats, and open APIs all enable interoperability&quot;</i><p>Yes. This is indeed the direction Google has been moving, and it&#x27;s a problem for those of us who enjoyed an open web, as users <i>and</i> developers.<p>Google tried to combat Facebook with open standards and it didn&#x27;t work. OpenSocial, if anyone remembers, was a huge effort by Google which would have the effect of commoditising Facebook&#x27;s functionality. They put themselves on the line by partnering with many other companies, and it failed to slow Facebook down.<p>They tried with other standards too, e.g. PubSubHubbub, WebFinger. Most people have never heard of them.<p>There&#x27;s no conspiracy theory needed here. Google tried with Reader too, for 8 years. It just didn&#x27;t take off. Most people found it too hard and found Facebook + Twitter way easier. Not the kind of people who read HN, but the kind of people who are too busy to figure out what seem like trivial technologies to early adopter types.<p>So yes, Marco is absolutely correct that Google&#x27;s becoming a company that, like Facebook, is more interested in bringing developers in <i>after</i> their products have gained traction with users. This is also how Apple has acquired so much interest from developers; they didn&#x27;t open source their OS, they didn&#x27;t spend years constructing open standards for mobile apps. They just built a hugely popular OS and developers came running.<p>All of this is <i>related to</i> Google Reader, all of this is true. BUT there&#x27;s no causation here, as much as some people want to believe it. Reader didn&#x27;t take off because most people didn&#x27;t use it. For a giant company focused on growth, that&#x27;s all the reason you need to turn it off.
评论 #5983396 未加载
评论 #5985012 未加载
评论 #5983514 未加载
评论 #5985671 未加载
评论 #5985627 未加载
评论 #5983527 未加载
jwralmost 12 years ago
This was exactly what I thought when I heard about Google closing down Reader. I&#x27;m glad Marco put this into a coherent article.<p>It is in Google&#x27;s best interest to have RSS and individual blogs die. Amusingly enough, it is also what Facebook wants, so the two giants are fully alinged on this one.<p>About 6 months ago I quit Facebook and Google+, deciding to publish my stuff on my pages and my blog alone, instead of throwing them into closed gardens. I do not regret that decision, even though readership dropped significantly.
评论 #5984044 未加载
zmmmmmalmost 12 years ago
Well, for once I agree with Marco. But I find it a little strange coming from him - he seemed to care not much about it at all when making his apps exclusive to Apple&#x27;s locked down, ultra closed platforms.
评论 #5982821 未加载
评论 #5982843 未加载
评论 #5985523 未加载
georgemcbayalmost 12 years ago
Re: Google+<p>Is their overall strategy to drive adoption working these days? I know their number of users must be quite large now, but AFAICT it is pretty much hugely inflated by being a catch-all for anyone with any kind of Google account.<p>I actually like Google+ quite a bit and have a lot of people in my circles and I&#x27;m in quite a lot of other people&#x27;s circles, but I never actually go to Google+ anymore (unless I&#x27;m following a link to some Linus post or something from somewhere else) because it simply never hit the required critical mass of actual mainstream usage for me to switch. Everyone I know and want to keep up with IRL is still stuck on Facebook, ergo I&#x27;m stuck on Facebook even though I don&#x27;t particularly care for it. Even among the smallish subgroup of people I know IRL who did embrace Google+ at first, they are virtually all like me now, with accounts that scarcely ever get used.<p>I&#x27;m not sure what Google+ has to do to make converts of the masses, but at least among my circles they aren&#x27;t doing it currently despite whatever collateral damage they are causing in trying to force people there.
评论 #5983976 未加载
评论 #5983085 未加载
cnbuff410almost 12 years ago
Isn&#x27;t it the same strategy Apple has been played all the time for its OS? And looks like Marco Arment has been enjoying it quite a lot? There is no freedom in terms of interoperability in your daily system and suddenly you are mad at &quot;losing it&quot;?
评论 #5983098 未加载
评论 #5982829 未加载
toygalmost 12 years ago
<i>&gt; Then you spend twice as much time figuring out how to deal with poorly crafted feeds, ambiguities, and edge cases — especially for Atom, which is a huge, overengineered pain in the ass</i><p>Funny: that&#x27;s what most people said of RSS 0.x (poorly crafted), 1.x (over-engineered) and 2.x (ambiguous and full of badly-specified edge-cases). Atom was supposed to fix all that.
评论 #5983228 未加载
评论 #5984433 未加载
WAalmost 12 years ago
The article reads as if RSS itself was dead. Come on guys, I know many of you loved Google Reader, but it was just a damn client for RSS. There are millions of RSS clients out there. Just use another one.<p>The article got that ass backward. With Google Reader, you were locked in Google&#x27;s ecosystem. Without Google Reader, you are free to use whatever RSS client you can find.<p>I think the role of Google Reader for RSS is truly overrated but please show me how I&#x27;m wrong.
评论 #5983317 未加载
评论 #5984397 未加载
jmdukealmost 12 years ago
I think it&#x27;s interesting to note here that despite Facebook, Google, and Twitter&#x27;s best intentions, new social networks grow faster today than ever before. Instagram, WhatsApp, and Snapchat exploded in a manner of weeks.
评论 #5982759 未加载
评论 #5983476 未加载
评论 #5982735 未加载
hayksaakianalmost 12 years ago
Good read, but it fizzled at the end.<p>Creating openness is not good enough. There were business reasons to support every long lasting open technology, and with the dominance of proprietary social media platforms, that business reason (for RSS at least) is dead.<p>The web opened up e commerce, and modern social media lowered the barrier to entry for online communities.<p>Its the same problem cryptography has, if its not dead simple and obviously useful don&#x27;t expect it to stick around (at least at mass appeal)
评论 #5982729 未加载
评论 #5982788 未加载
评论 #5982895 未加载
wyclifalmost 12 years ago
<i>This plan is particularly problematic because Google+ is, relatively, a clear failure so far</i><p>An absurd statement on the face of it (even with the weasel-word qualifier), given Google+&#x27;s large number of active users. In fact, given the traffic there, I suspect his ridiculous Cupertino fanboism is to blame for not considering Google+ a smashing success.
评论 #5984059 未加载
评论 #5983383 未加载
评论 #5983336 未加载
olalondealmost 12 years ago
Conspicuously missing: any sort of criticism directed at Apple.
评论 #5982918 未加载
评论 #5983102 未加载
评论 #5982883 未加载
rounakalmost 12 years ago
Find it strange that he doesn&#x27;t once mention Apple, iMessage or iCloud, which rank really low on the data interoperability front.
评论 #5983111 未加载
评论 #5983105 未加载
esolytalmost 12 years ago
An Apple fan complaining about Google not being &quot;open&quot; enough. Wow.<p>Remember everyone: &quot;Open web&quot; is very important! But your browser itself doesn&#x27;t need to be open source. Use Safari instead of Chrome. Your OS doesn&#x27;t need to be open source either. Use and develop for OSX. Use and develop for iOS. Refuse developing for Android and make iOS-exclusive apps. Buy all Apple products and support Apple. Then open a blog to advocate openness and bash companies that build open source tools.
评论 #5984352 未加载
评论 #5984391 未加载
评论 #5984584 未加载
评论 #5984386 未加载
评论 #5989320 未加载
评论 #5989316 未加载
tlrobinsonalmost 12 years ago
You&#x27;d think they could at least have slowly integrated Reader with their G+ vision rather than alienating a good portion of the users who have championed them for years.
评论 #5982807 未加载
评论 #5982823 未加载
hanspeidealmost 12 years ago
Is this worth reading? Whenever I see marco.org I think to myself: &quot;Apple love, Google hate as usual&quot; and move on.
评论 #5983528 未加载
psionidesalmost 12 years ago
The thing I don&#x27;t understand is that for me, Twitter and Facebook aren&#x27;t a competition for blogs and RSS. They&#x27;re different things and they&#x27;re complementary.<p>Twitter and Facebook are for posting links to things you&#x27;ve found or broadcasting short messages up to a few sentences. Twitter is for doing those things publicly, Facebook is for doing those things within the circle of your friends.<p>Blogs (and RSS) are for posting longer pieces of text, articles and such things. When you want to post an article, you don&#x27;t put it on Twitter (for obvious reasons) or Facebook (because it limits your audience), you put it on your blog (self-hosted or on a service like Blogger or Wordpress) and you post links to it to Twitter and&#x2F;or Facebook. And when you want to invite your friends to a movie, you don&#x27;t post that to your blog, you post that on Facebook.<p>So I&#x27;m not worried that Twitter and Facebook don&#x27;t have RSS feeds - I wouldn&#x27;t even want to see my friends&#x27; FB posts when I&#x27;m reading longer articles in my RSS reader. And I&#x27;m not worried about Facebook killing blogs and RSS - yes, most people post stuff on Facebook and not on their blogs, but that&#x27;s because most people don&#x27;t write anything that would resemble an article.<p>(I do agree though that Twitter should have <i>some</i> open API for getting someone&#x27;s public tweets in a machine-readable form, but it doesn&#x27;t have to be RSS, JSON is just fine.)
netcanalmost 12 years ago
The type of interactions that Facebook focused on are naturally inclined to be closed. You need to manage who sees what. BTW this was a revolution that got the late adopters online and got people comfortable using their own names.<p>Anyway, my point is that this isn&#x27;t a conspiracy. Google+ might have all sorts of potential for moneymaking but its not google&#x27;s main business at this point. This trend towards more closed systems is largely emergent. These closed environments are we&#x27;re people like to interact.
MatthewPhillipsalmost 12 years ago
&gt; Google tried to combat Facebook with open standards and it didn&#x27;t work. OpenSocial, if anyone remembers, was a huge effort by Google which would have the effect of commoditising Facebook&#x27;s functionality. They put themselves on the line by partnering with many other companies, and it failed to slow Facebook down.<p>Why does Google have to &quot;slow down&quot; Facebook? What does that even mean? Is Google only successful if no other successful web companies exist?
评论 #5984071 未加载
brudgersalmost 12 years ago
I&#x27;ve come up with a charitable interpretation of Google shutting down Reader. And I am not known for being charitable toward Google.<p>I just have a gut feeling that shutting down Reader may have made life easier for Google when it comes to National Security Letters, subpoenas, warrants or whatever. Turning over a list of what someone has read, does seem a bit evil.<p>Maybe I am being naive in attributing a positive motivation to them on this issue. But it just feels more plausible in light of the backlash of negative feelings the shutdown has created, who harbors such feelings, and the rather trivial resources required to maintain the service.<p>If they were turning over logs from Reader - and why wouldn&#x27;t they have been requested - what options would Google have? Carry on or shutdown or lawyer up, are about it.<p>Would the backlash when such a practice was disclosed be less than that for shutting down Reader? I doubt it. People who didn&#x27;t use Reader, like me, don&#x27;t care about its shutdown. But I&#x27;d probably be full of condemnation and brimstone when commenting on a story about Google turning over reading lists to the government.
评论 #5982840 未加载
评论 #5982834 未加载
Yhippaalmost 12 years ago
The gravitational pull of Google, Facebook, and Twitter is just too big. If you&#x27;re a business and not creating content on those sites these days you aren&#x27;t getting noticed. So you cater all of your activities towards their locked-in APIs and you don&#x27;t have resources to maintain an RSS feed nobody uses.<p>As long as content continues to be centralized in those three companies interop is toast.
评论 #5983544 未加载
评论 #5982781 未加载
zer0gravityalmost 12 years ago
What we need is a user owned facebook. We need to find a way to shrink the whole Facebook functionality to run on a system the size of a router.
评论 #5985892 未加载
indraneel24almost 12 years ago
&gt;Well, fuck them, and fuck that.<p>But—I&#x27;m curious to see what everyone thinks—are we too late for this attitude to change anything?
评论 #5982820 未加载
评论 #5982756 未加载
programminggeekalmost 12 years ago
I think Reader was a great, if neglected product, but I don&#x27;t think it matters that Google maintains it.<p>What moved the needle for google 5 years ago is not what will move the needle today. Google will focus more on search, g+, android, apps, cloud, because those things can make an impact relative to Google&#x27;s current scale.
rsheridan6almost 12 years ago
If Google wants to kill off internal competitors to Google+, I suppose blogspot is next on the chopping block.
davidpalmost 12 years ago
Similar to Scott Hanselman&#x27;s &quot;Your Words Are Wasted&quot;, a more impactfully written (IMO) piece about the same problem.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4403558" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=4403558</a>
antitrustalmost 12 years ago
What&#x27;s good for business is a centralized standard format which makes it easy for consumers to browse without thinking.<p>What&#x27;s good for the net is the opposite, which is the kind of decentralized it-just-routes-around system that the internet was designed to be in the first place.<p>To my chagrin, most of my clients, friends and family prefer the standardized and sanitized sites like Facebook, Wikipedia, *.google.com, Reddit and Digg.<p>I miss the anarchy days, when every site was a random gesture thrown up by someone possessed of the spirit of an idea or a plan, and not all websites were standardized web apps that are just too &quot;perfect&quot; to be fun, or to permit evolution.<p>&#x2F;off my lawn
xenonitealmost 12 years ago
On the contrary. Google requires the access to the open web, because its advertising and its search engine need that access, as I will show below.<p>Reader was not known to most people, but to many technical folks. Among them are many bloggers. Shutting down Reader certainly removed one big plus of the open blogging world.<p>Thereby people have less arguments to blog openly. How is that a problem for Google? If people choose to move over to closed platforms, that content becomes inacessible to both Google&#x27;s crawler, and to Google ads on blogs.<p>Thus, by turning off Reader, Google actually hurts itself not only directly, but indirectly by treating the openness of the web less favorably.
dt7almost 12 years ago
If Google want us to move from Reader to Google+, why are they not pushing it as a replacement? Do they think RSS users are a lost cause?
评论 #5983339 未加载
medellalmost 12 years ago
First the hardware war, then the OS war, followed by the browser war and search engine war, and now the mobile war and social network war. This won&#x27;t be the last... or could it?<p>Will we be using Facebook daily 5 years from now? 10 years? 20?<p>Or is the next war in augmented reality, which Google has a head start? (but using which social network?)<p>Anyone have good links to futurist thinkers on these topics?
mlchildalmost 12 years ago
Whether you agree or disagree with the piece, I think it&#x27;s perhaps more interesting to try to put together the clues about Marco&#x27;s next project.<p>My guess would be something like a new publishing standard or system that makes it easy to package good writing into an immersive mobile form, possibly via Newsstand. But just spitballin&#x27; here.
505almost 12 years ago
If you work for Google, and you have a neat idea for an online service, resist the temptation to do it within Google.
alexirobbinsalmost 12 years ago
If we want an openweb, advocacy won&#x27;t cut it over the long haul. open is currently just less efficient at distributing + monetizing content. That&#x27;s what we need to change, not the minds and paychecks of developers.
pizualmost 12 years ago
And here is a further proof that Google wants to become the one-stop shop for all your internet needs: <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/flights" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.co.uk&#x2F;flights</a>
Kiroalmost 12 years ago
&quot;Over the years, comma usage after prepositional phrases has also apparently declined.&quot;<p>The prepositional phrase is not in the beginning of the sentence and is less than four words so no comma needed!
评论 #5983651 未加载
th0ma5almost 12 years ago
Brilliant piece. Perhaps we&#x27;ll always have shifts to and from the mainframe as it were, in some senses, and I for one really enjoy the ride.
aetalmost 12 years ago
I&#x27;ve never used a &quot;Reader&quot; before. Question: Were content providers able to server ads via the Reader?
评论 #5984416 未加载
评论 #5983695 未加载
webwanderingsalmost 12 years ago
.....Well, fuck them, and fuck that.....<p>Amen.
paranoiacblackalmost 12 years ago
I agree that Facebook started a &quot;war&quot;, but I don&#x27;t think any of these companies want to &quot;close us in&quot; any more than they did when they first started. Sure, you can look at the closing of Google Reader as the antithesis of openness and RSS but you&#x27;d somehow seem to miss that Google, Facebook, and Twitter still support a lot of APIs that promote openness and interoperability. Actually, they continue to release more and more APIs as do other startups (i.e. Github).<p>Openness and interoperability aren&#x27;t going away, they&#x27;re merely being <i>refined</i>. That might mean taking away the hacker&#x27;s toy for a bit while some kinks get worked out (i.e. Google&#x27;s Jabber issue and the switch to Blink). It might also mean that we live in a monoculture for a while (Webkit). But regardless, the web is steadily improving and no matter how much you all try to spin it, RSS and Google Reader really aren&#x27;t the martyrs you claim them to be. It sucks that even a successful product can be mercilessly shut down by the evil Google tyrants, but it shouldn&#x27;t be surprising at all.<p>Sometimes companies make decisions that hurt a part of their user base for some perceived benefit for other users. Did Google fuck up by closing Reader? Probably. But it&#x27;s not the end of the world.
评论 #5982862 未加载
评论 #5982902 未加载
res0nat0ralmost 12 years ago
Entitlement. I has it.<p>Why does HN continue to think that companies on the web who give their services to millions of users away <i>for free</i> (please don&#x27;t repeat the you are the product being sold meme), are <i>entitled</i> to direct said companies to keep any project you deem useful around for as long as you deem it important (to said $RANDOM_MILLION_USER)?<p>With a userbase the size of Google there will be millions of people complaining about removing every single product they&#x27;ve ever released. Google isn&#x27;t the Oracle of the world where Oracle releases a product, charges you out the wazoo, gives you 24&#x2F;7 support and only enter the market of said product after researching if it is a good business investment or not. Google is the one who experiments, tests, lets you use for free, and either retires or promotes projects which turn out to be good for the company (either tech wise, or to the dismay of HN money wise). That&#x27;s their MO.<p>Google and Facebook allow you to export your data for most of their services, and I think we can all agree that Google at least are good at giving users a fair amount of heads up before they sunset a product (or should we call it an experiment?).<p>It seems the prevailing notion on HN anymore is once you are a big company (bad), any service you offer the internet no matter how long ago, should be kept around indefinitely, because you are a big company (bad) and you now make a lot of money (bad). Therefore you should let everyone free ride on your platform so that fellow (broke) startups can bootstrap themselves off your prior work (good). But once said (good, broke) startups start making lots of cash, they will then become (bad) and fall into the same category of other (bad) internet giants.
评论 #5982957 未加载
评论 #5982828 未加载
评论 #5982888 未加载
评论 #5982945 未加载
评论 #5982847 未加载
评论 #5982814 未加载
评论 #5982899 未加载
评论 #5982933 未加载
评论 #5982816 未加载
评论 #5982871 未加载
评论 #5982936 未加载
评论 #5982990 未加载
评论 #5982874 未加载