Pretty interesting. It's the FastFlip of Google Reader. With FastFlip, you don't have as much choice as to the news they show so I guess they're going the same direction here with Reader Play
If this catches on, I could see a lot of site owners crying foul over the fact that google is scraping the choicest bits of content w/o providing any page views or ad revenue.
I don't think this is just another RSS reader. Here's why:
In a typical RSS reader, the relationship between the user and the content producer is more pronounced; the user proactively selects content sources and knows where each piece of content comes from; as a result, there is still a significant element of brand reinforcement.
The internet has discussed the economic implications of RSS readers ad nauseam so I wont go there. However, this isn't just an RSS reader; this site allows me (as a reader) to consume an amazing amount of content with pretty much no idea where it came from and very little inducement for follow-up interaction with the content creator.
In other words: Google Play is basically stumbleupon, except in Google's version, the "toolbar" takes up the entire screen. Google is redefining the transaction in a way that minimizes value for the content creators and maximizes value for Google.
I wouldn't use such damning words, but basically I agree.
The thing is, RSS hasn't caught on with users/readers after all this time. I think we can safely say most people won't ever use an RSS reader in the way that was expected, a pull email system. It has however, caught on with publishers. That makes it into a behind the scenes technology that users don't really need to know about, which I think means the disconnect is to be expected. I don't think there is a clear line between the implications previously discussed (ad nauseam) and this, if a user doesn't know what an rss feed is.
Well put. I agree that in practice, these sort of smart sites have much different implications than RSS readers. But as we all know, if you put it out there, people can do as they will with it. If content producers don't like this, their only good recourse is to drop their RSS feeds (or embed ads in their content, which is still vulnerable to the RSS equivalent of an ad-blocker.)
I can see potential in this for living room browsing on a TV. It's more of a passive approach to content. You don't have to seek anything out -- it's just there and you can click Next if you don't like it for something else. Everything seems to be formatted well for a TV sized/resolution display. If this was built into my TV or other set tops I'd probably use it.
I can't understand the way they decide how Google Reader evolves, I mean they just have to pick up one of the many feature requests : http://productideas.appspot.com/#16/e=22493
GR lacks many basic features (read an item later, filters, views per feeds...)
Mine has actually been extremely relevant to my feeds. Might be because I've been religiously starring favored articles for over a year (a few hundred, easily). Reader is the best and worst thing that's happened to my time for a long time.
I tapped the right arrow for about 10 minutes and still never saw a single thing that felt like real content. I would think it would get the hint that I didn't LIKE any of it.
