Google is about to learn a tough lesson

&#62; Google made a big mistake cancelling Google Reader that will have severe ripple effects to its empire.<p>Oh come on: enough already. Obviously there was a /vocal/ user base which is very loudly now upset that the product is being sunset. Guess what, Google didn't see it as a large enough set of people to make it worth monetizing. Such is life. Move on. It's certainly not the end of Google if that's what this article is trying to imply. It isn't even the beginning of some horrible backlash either. It is however getting old.

I sympathize with Google Reader users. I find it occasionally tiresome to be half-foot in an ecosystem. But I've come to accept that this is just the way that Google does things.<p>I love Gmail/Calendar/Maps/DamnNearEverything. I love Groups, which they've recently taken pains to hide[1] so I suspect its up soon for the chopping block. Heck I even love Google+.<p>All that said, at least they had the gall to kill it. One thing that pains me more than killing a product they don't want is letting one <i>languish broken for ages.</i><p>I'm fully in the G-cosystem[2] but sadly Google Finance is nearly worthless, and only edited about once a year, usually to break something and fix it a month later.<p>You can't switch to a current (non-closed) holdings view where it only shows you information about stocks you own right now, instead you have to make two portfolios. You can't reorder portfolios so my real portfolios and my "lookers" are separated in an awkward list. News stories are half spam and appear out of order anyway. Finance doesn't sync well with the Android app, sometimes it finds zero portfolios and makes me make temporary mobile ones that I have to delete later.<p>How many Java errors are on the Finance homepage today? Just one. How about on a stock ticker page? Thirty-one. And it's still using <i>Flash.</i><p>I don't think the Reader backlash will hurt Google. There are just some products they <i>plainly don't care about</i> and will continue to ignore them until somebody brushes over the "shutter" button while the rest of the company shrugs.<p>~~~<p>[1] <a href="http://i.imgur.com/bs7i5pL.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/bs7i5pL.png</a><p>Groups isn't even on the extended products list in the Gmail header bar, though Reader is! You have to click "Even more" to get to Groups.<p>[2] I cringed writing that but it was too good to let go.

So, what's going to happen, exactly?<p>"Influencers" who liked Google Reader, now jilted, are going to use their magic influence beam to halt the growth of Android, to erode the dominance of Google in search, and prevent the regulatory approval of self-driving cars?<p>Google has quite a few heavy responsibilities on their hands. They have to manage growth and competition in hugely complex, emerging fields.<p>The lesson they learned <i>correctly</i> was that focus is essential. RSS is dead. A handful of nerds enjoy it, it solves a handful of problems, but it's not a hot technology around which you can build a business on the scale that will move needles for Google.<p>So they cut it and they're not even going to notice it in the rearview mirror.<p>In an amusing, if anecdotal, aside – Gina Trapani, an OG nerd influencer if ever there was one, tweeted that she'd checked out of Google Reader long ago.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/ginatrapani/status/312451705692385280" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/ginatrapani/status/312451705692385280</a>

Perhaps google learns a tough lesson. Or perhaps bloggers who think they are "influencers" are going to learn a tough lesson about how much impact their influence really has.<p>Google knows what they're doing. They haven't forgotten the outrage that happened after they stripped the social features out of reader and replaced it with the +1 button. They knew all those people and more would be pissed. And they decided it didn't matter.

&#62;Third, and lastly, Google is sending a strong signal to the market that it will have no mercy of killing whatever product it doesn’t think it’s going well.<p>Yep. I was just investigating Cloud SQL storage today and Google has a free Cloud SQL trial plan and decent pricing. I passed it over because I am concerned Google isn't interested in long term maintenance of products, and their support is non-existent. I'd rather go with some no-name startup that probably cares a lot more about my business.<p><a href="https://cloud.google.com/pricing/cloud-sql" rel="nofollow">https://cloud.google.com/pricing/cloud-sql</a>

This just shows Google just doesn't get design. Sure, they may have figured out CSS3 and made Gmail super hard to use, but they don't really get design.<p>Ever noticed how Facebook kills a feature? Slow, steady, they drift you away, showing you by hand what better is out there, and then the feature disappears, first from our conscious, and then from the website. If FB was the one calling shots here, they probably would have somehow merged G+ and Reader, and then slowly started to show us those stories better using Currents, and by the time everyone is comfortable, would have killed Reader.<p>Google doesn't get design. It has to be in everything. Even in killing products off, there is design. You can't design with a corporate sledgehammer. All they seem to be doing is kill off established niche products in hopes of somehow making a niche social network successful. If only someone builds a better search engine, right this moment.

RSS was a literal life changer when I first discovered it. Instead of going to the 5-10 websites I frequented to look for new stories throughout the day, I could check my reader when I took a break and stay up to date on everything. It probably cut my surfing time by 90% or more.<p>Additionally RSS allows me to follow far more things than would normally be possible. Instead of 10 I have 100, including things that don't update even every month.<p>Previously the discussion was always about how to make RSS usable for the masses, but I suppose this problem was never solved. Social media seems to work for some people, but it isn't the same. I can only count a handful of times in the last decade that I site I was interested in didn't have an RSS feed. It is practically universal. Facebook does indeed have a lot of people, but there is also the constant friend spam, and the algorithmic filtering to worry about.<p>When I look at the alternatives to Google Reader, it is clear that many of them don't get me. They are focused on content discovery, but i want to do is Keep Track. I don't want to miss a word from my favorite sources, and I need my reader to hold on to their words until I get to them.<p>I really hope RSS doesn't die. It is my handle on the internet, and without it I would still be refreshing sites all day.

This was my second thought when Google announced that they were retiring Reader (the first was "Nooo!")<p>Half of my friends use Gmail because I suggested that they switch. I am starting to see Google move toward the dark side, and that means you won't see me recommending Google products to friends. It'll take a while, but there will be backlash... because I'm not the only one in this boat.

I love Marcello and am a fan, but this is an emotional, not well thought through reaction.<p>The best leaders, the best organizations, the ones that create excellence, are those that are as good at saying no as they are at saying yes.<p>I've worked at a large company. It is easy for outsiders to think "oh, they have infinite resources and can do anything". This is not the case at all.<p>I am not much of a Google fan. I dropped Reader about 2 years ago and have used NewsBlur since. The only Google product I like is Chrome.<p>Google will continue to be successful, not by doing a bazillion little things poorly, but a few things, really, really well.<p>And to do a few things, really, really well, you have to be excellent at saying no. Google has decided Reader is a little thing it could not do really, really, well. So it is saying no.<p>I applaud that. (Even if it's caused NewsBlur to become almost too slow to use).

I love the idea of loss-leaders aimed at a specific, influential segment of the entire market. I'd never really thought of services like that.<p>I'm curious what uses there are for this specific type of loss-leader (as in not the Dropbox freemium type). Ethics aside, for instance, Google could have tried to steer conversation among an influential group toward certain topics, by more aggressively suggesting certain Google blogs to follow, or specific stories relevant to Google.<p>I'm also very curious what other such loss-leading services exist. One example is this forum. It advertises to potential founders with the small banner ad at the upper-left-hand corner of the screen. It also provides an ecosystem for the discussions about and (indirect) promotions of organizations or ideas YC invests in (like Watsi, or job postings).<p>The other example I can think of is "high-brow" political magazines like The National Review. Often, parties dedicated time and money on promoting ideas there, even though it's a very small segment of the entire market of voters.<p>Has anyone here designed a service or product with this specific aim in mind? How did you use it to further some broader agenda?

I love how the closure of Reader reveals something about the tech journalists and "celebrities".<p>They throw tantrums. They throws hissy fits. They scream bloody murder. They divine doom and gloom for Google about how severely this will affect it in much more important markets like Android and Chrome.<p>And yet the world is not ending, and not every Facebook wall has this petition [1] plastered all over. Even GOOG stock underwent as a much as a correction, still hovering comfortably above $800.<p>What did happen, though, is that self-important "opinion leaders" had their illusions of power dispelled. No wonder they are furious.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.change.org/petitions/google-keep-google-reader-running" rel="nofollow">https://www.change.org/petitions/google-keep-google-reader-r...</a>

I'm unconvinced Google is about to learn anything because this isn't the first time they have killed a product with a large following. It seems now if a product doesn't generate at least 100 million, it isn't safe from being discontinued. So YouTube, will continue to live alongside Search, but it looks like Picassa is on its way to be rebranded "Google+Pictures"<p>Instead it looks like everyone else is going to learn tough lesson - Google isn't a charity, and anything that doesn't provide them any strategic value and/or revenue can be discontinued.

Look, the TFA is full of crap. Here is the reality: today I would have a hard time coming up with a better alternative for a free productivity suite and search engine for most individuals and small to medium enterprises. When I am talking to someone looking to run things under their own domain, they might ask "do you think Google is going to discontinue support for Apps/GMail/Docs/Drive/etc?" To which I would have to reply "very unlikely". I think the OP overestimates the influence of the people that used GR. Sure, some had pull but the pragmatic ones can see the difference between Google's flagship products and GR.<p>There are plenty of reasons to not buy into the Google Ecosystem, but this is not one of them. Then again, all we need to do is wait a few months and see if the earnings report supports the OP's claim or Google's strategy. My money is ong Google.

Similar to the lesson(s) they learned after shutting down Google Code Search, Google Buzz, Jaiku, Google Health or any of the others? You just happened to like a product that was an overall failure. It happens.

Twitter and Facebook killed RSS. It's a far friendlier interface for people to keep up with news and people they find interesting. Geeks may be lamenting the loss of Google Reader, but they make up a very small percentage of the internet population these days. When I suggest that Twitter/Facebook is the new RSS I often catch a lot of flack for it, but honestly, that's how far more people consume information than any other service.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is how odd it is that google is killing a product likely used widely <i>within Google</i>.

Parts of this post are premised the "influencer" marketing model, but there is at least some research indicating that it might not be as powerful as generally assumed. For example:<p>* <a href="http://misc.si.umich.edu/media/papers/wsdm333w-bakshy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://misc.si.umich.edu/media/papers/wsdm333w-bakshy.pdf</a><p>* <a href="http://www.digitaltonto.com/wp-content/uploads/WattsandDoddinfluentials.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.digitaltonto.com/wp-content/uploads/WattsandDoddi...</a><p>"Grouped: How small groups of friends are the key to influence on the social web," the book by Paul Adams @ Facebook (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grouped-groups-friends-influence-social/dp/0321804112" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Grouped-groups-friends-influence-socia...</a>), talks a bit about this.<p>Anecdotally, I've also seen quite a bit of evidence first hand that suggests the impact of influencers is not clear-cut.

If Google is shutting down reader, are they going to remove RSS feeds from Blogger? What about Feedburner?<p>I think Google's better move would have been cut a few features and 'Plus-ify' Reader - kinda like they have been doing with their other products. They would have evolved an important user base, shown commitment to the RSS standard, and kept a number of important apps using their api's.<p>Aren't they after all supposed to be championing the open web?<p>I don't think this is intentional, but it now hard to argue againsT people saying that they intentionally waited till they killed the RSS readers market and then shut down their product.

What are "influencers" going to do about it? Give Reader a bad review? Complain about the death of a product no one knew existed? I don't see how they have any leverage in this situation. The comparison with Microsoft's Word Count incident seems weakly relevant.

And as everyone knows the word count tool initiated the downfall of microsoft word empire. Seriously, I don't think it was a bad decision to kill the reader. Not a nice one, but I think certainly not one where Google is going to learn a lesson about.

I can't wait for this debacle to stop being news.<p>Google cancelled a product. It let you read websites quickly. There are other ways to do it. Moving on...

Makes a lot of sense.<p>As an average Joe, I am preparing to go on Google-free diet come July 1. Firefox, Bing, Outlook. Will find a reader somehow. These are the daily habits which accumulate over time and provide GOOGLE what it needs to survive. So will do everything possible to cut down the ...

I guess they're doing everything they can to get everyone to Google+. If they can't bait you, they force you. They want their own Facebook. Probably Blogger will also be phased out as soon as they afford to.<p>But I don't think the future will belong neither to Google+ nor Facebook. I'm looking forward to a descentralized, user centric platform, that anyone can run on its raspberry pi box at home, that allows you to manage your data however you please.

An article full of nonsense. Discontinuing Google Reader IS NOT sending a message to enterprises that they should not use Google product for the long term.

No one mentioned it in the thread so far. I am working in academia, and RSS is a lifesaver for us, to keep track of new academic papers. I am following around 50 journals, everyone of which publishes a few articles daily, at least. That makes around 1k papers/month. There's no way for us to check every journal website every morning. Twitter or Facebook are totally unsuitable for this. My second constraint is that during my day, I use 2 different computers, a phone and an iPad to check on my RSS feed, depending on where I am and what I do. Reader was providing a flawless solution for the sync. There will be another one soon, that's ok. But according to my twitter stream, many, many people in academia are pissed off about this decision. I posted my feelings here <a href="http://wp.me/p1eIvd-d2" rel="nofollow">http://wp.me/p1eIvd-d2</a>

- Reader wars start again. This can be a big positive from this news. Already people are finding new readers to meet their needs. It will drive innovation and I expect to see some great products coming in.<p>- As many people know things were pretty stagnant on Google Reader. Though it worked for a lot of us, products like Google+ were always going to get more focus. In this way Google might have done us a service by retiring a product it was not developing fully.<p>- Wonder if the product name was a limitation in itself. Google Reader was always going to be a reader even if you add social stuff into it. If that is the case, maybe they should rename Google Finance to Google Money!<p>- People are asking if we can trust with Google on providing all these free services. Pragmatic among us say "NO" and will remind us that they have been saying this for ages. Optimistic among us say, well "Gmail", "Youtube" etc. are for "forever".<p>- Most people like Google services because it means "one login", and it goes all the way to help Android as well. Even if some people are considering their relationships with Google, it is not in Google's best interests.<p>- Another side effect of the above is - what happens on next spring cleaning? Should I wait to use a product until that product acquires enough momentum? I will be a bit more hesitant to recommend other Google products.<p>- There is a debate going on between free and paid services. I think it is more about getting a right business model. Services can fail even if you pay them. Most people are not going to pay more than $5/$10 a month for a service like this.<p>- A big opportunity for a company like Yahoo to get an app for all the devices, and among the influencers. I will be surprised if they don't try to raise their game on readers and provide a better "Google Reader". (this advice is for other companies as well, however I believe, yahoo, will be the one to grab it.)<p>- Was a bit surprised with all the bitching going on at hacker news. I mean, let them close it, we will have another one or built a new one! And, no petitions please.

I'm biased about this topic, but don't take my word for it. Robert Scoble is one such 'influencer' and here's his take and the discussion around it: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/499071000129201" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/499071000129201</a><p>Key takeaway: it's not the 'vast majority' that bring about innovation and change on the web. It might be Google doesn't care about innovating on the web front anymore, at least less than the hardware and integrated systems fronts. So ironically, this might actually hurt Plus.

It shouldn't really come as a surprise that Google is acting more and more now like a big established company with shareholders (which they are). When you become an established industry leader (as a profit-driven shareholder company), you tend to focus on minimising overheads, cutting cruft and focusing on core profit-driven services.<p>They aren't going to be benevolent dictators of the internet forever - we should be thankful that their benevolence has lasted so long (and still is lasting through many free services provided).

I haven't used a feed reader in more than three years. I believe that fad is gone. Google has closed many more important services and they're still strong.<p>Nop. There is no lesson to be learnt.

&#62; Third, and lastly, Google is sending a strong signal to the market that it will have no mercy of killing whatever product it doesn’t think it’s going well.<p>They have been doing that for years. I'm not sure if anything but Search and Gmail are safe from the axe. They'll <i>probably</i> not end-of-life Maps or G+, but almost anything else should probably be treated as a beta that can be removed at will.

"By killing a product that was beloved and heavily used by most influencers, you start to alienate those folks. Killing a product like Picnik with tens of millions of users, might have less impact on the business than killing a product with less than a million users, where most of those users are influencers."<p>Reminds me of what Apple is doing with the Mac Pro.

It's very easy to make up a story like the one about MS Word after the event. Not so easy to predict in advance who these influencers are, who they influence, and if they exist in the first place. Duncan Watts has researched this and there's an interview here. <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/scientist-influencer-theory-bogus-105981" rel="nofollow">http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/scientist-in...</a><p>" They throw parties or they give away free samples or they advertise in particular publications that brand themselves as reaching an influential audience and run some campaign in their normal manner. And if it works, they say, "We reached the influencers." And if it doesn't work, they say "We didn't reach the influencers" or "We weren't able to make them help us." In that sense, it's just a rhetorical device to help you explain the randomness that you actually experience in the world. "

Meh, I don't use google reader or really care, but I am pissed they plan on ending igoogle in November. It's insane to me that they will do this.<p>It's my homepage and I'm sure millions of other people's homepages. Setting your homepage to an internet company's site is pretty much their whole goal. It's insane to me that they will give this up.

How many little web services have you all used, that have come and gone over the years, that never had as much money behind them as Google? Most people are going to trust that Google has a better chance long-term, even if the product has a chance of going away some day. I am always leery of my data with small companies, and make sure there is a good backup/exit strategy (obviously, this applies to Google too).<p>I see a lot of passionate tweets over just another web service. If Google wasn't killing the service, but asking users to spread the word to keep the service, would they be so passionate about it then? Maybe. People don't often go to Twitter when their service is working, generally when they're pissed (unless the service is mind-blowing great). I just don't think all the whining is going to do much convincing at this point, or that it will impact Google all that much.

The right way to respond to this backlash would be to make Reader a paid app and tell people it'll stay while enough pay for it (and of course be transparent about user count etc). I can't see Google going that way though, it was free and if they don't want to pay to support it there's no reason to expect them to.

If it isn't Google search or Gmail, I'm not making any decisions that depend on it. It's that simple. And frankly, I'm likely moving my email off it as soon as I get some spare bandwidth to find something I like enough. (I really like webmail.)

I had exactly the same feelings when I heard about the decision. Now I'm planning to stop using Google Voice, which has the same indications of getting killed soon (zero development, no promotion, etc.) I am less excited about Google+ as well - I just cannot tolerate a company that kills features and products like this. This decision from Google is really damaging to them and they are idiots of they don't see it. This "focus" thing applies to small shops. Google is huge. They can afford to keep a product like Google Reader - small shops can't.

I'll say this: This behavior by Google has gotten me for the first time to take a deeper look at Microsoft's 365. I'll also be much more careful in the future before using GCE for a real business purpose.

As a user of Google Reader, I'm kind of glad it's going away. Why? Because now good quality web-based RSS feed readers will finally arise. Sure, there are some out there now, but with Google's monopoly on the product nobody really cared about them and they weren't very good or reliable. Now that will be forced to change.<p>To me this is like if in 2002 Microsoft had decided to stop making Internet Explorer and force everyone to use a different browser - quality browsers would have been developed and adopted a lot faster.

<i>&#62; First, Google says that it “gets” social, but you can’t “get” social if you don’t get the concept of an influencer. By killing a product that was beloved and heavily used by most influencers, you start to alienate those folks.</i><p>If op is right about Google Reader users, then the same thing is happening with OS X users. A part of the reason for OS X's success was adoption by influencers. Samsung, Android, and others have made a lot of inroads on influencer groups.

I'm not saying that Google "gets" social (because they obviously don't), but everyone I know who uses Google Reader is definitely not the influencer type.

How I read HN: 1) Subscribe to HN feed in Google Reader 2) Install Reeder app everywhere (phone, iPad, laptop) 3) Link Reeder to Google Reader 4) Read happy... all items synced across all platforms, read, unread, starred. 5) Any time I have a free moment I pop open Reeder on my phone and read HN.<p>I don't give a %$@*%&#38; about "social"...<p>Mission #1 is now to find another service that will reliably feed RSS feeds into Reeder.

Google Reader is not just a feed but also as a tool for many people that are oppress by internet censorship it the only way people get free information and fight oppression...<p>I guess Google don't care<p><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512566/unintentional-interfaces-google-readers-censorship-busting-power-will-be-hard-to/" rel="nofollow">http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512566/unintentional-in...</a>

I saw a HackerNews thread ranking/listing RSS alternatives, found Feedly was the top one and migrated my feeds from google reader. Now, I kick myself for using Google Reader all this time when Feedly is clearly far better (for me).<p>While I've lost a little respect for Google, I am overall happy to find a better RSS reader alternative.

My first inclination seeing the title of this post even before I read the article was to comment, "are you a fortune teller?"<p>But seriously, to put it mildly my friend, I don't agree with you. Google determined that the best thing to do was to kill it and they did. They continue building other stuff; life continues.

Actually, I'd say it's the <i>audience</i> that learns a tough lesson: If you use an application that requires a server operated by somebody else, there's never a guarantee that the service will operate forever.<p>This is a compelling argument in favor of DRM-free desktop applications.

all of this (I think) is Larry Page in action. for a long time there was no clear strategy with Schmidt. "products" would pop up everywhere with no clear relationship. now Larry is cutting the wild growth. while it hurts some people I think in general it will strengthen Google.<p>&#62; Oh, and I’m pissed with Google Reader going away. I used it 3-10 times a day to consume about 100+ feeds.<p>look, if you want to have a more effective RSS reading habit, use rss2email <a href="http://www.allthingsrss.com/rss2email/" rel="nofollow">http://www.allthingsrss.com/rss2email/</a> and plug into the power of email-filtering. you don't even have to go to some "reader" to get updated.

I think we are all just going to learn the tough lesson of how little we matter.

&#62; Sure, I’m pretty sure Gmail is not going away, but what ... YouTube? I think a lot of products would be happy to as precarious a future as Youtube...

With this decision, Google made it lot easier for our company to choose between self-hosted mail server and Google Apps business account.

If I were Microsoft I'd be pushing Bing Reader out the door ASAP. I'm sure they'd find a use for all those disgruntled influencers.

If you really want Google to bring Reader back we should all delete our Google+ accounts. Not banter in a corner of the Internet.

Google has made a pure "Top-down decision". Apple also made one like this: replace Google Maps by Maps Apple style. #Fail

Heck, if you display feed titles, excerpts from Google Reader aggregated feed on your website, this will be dead too!

"Microsoft new about it but didn’t care because it had data that showed that feature was just minimally used."<p>What?

Seems like wishful thinking.

Why would Google want to maintain and promote an app that makes it easy for people to go to non-Google sites?

Google officially lost the "we're not Facebook /Microsoft /Apple [other "evil empire"] company." They have played that game for way too long and many people fell for it. Since Larry Page took over, Google has lost it's soul; now it's just a greedy, money grubbing machine.<p>Nothing is sacred anymore, no matter how much they repeat <a href="http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/</a>