I feel like killing Reader was the point at which I switched from viewing Google mostly positively to more skeptically. Which doesn't seem terribly rational, really; it wasn't the first product to be axed, it was perfectly possible to replace... Maybe it was just the first product axing that really affected me? The moment Google went from "provider of great free stuff" to "sometimes provider of free stuff, sometimes kills stuff" is the moment it became unreliable, the moment I had to stop and consider whether their interests really aligned with mine rather than just assuming so. Or maybe I'm just bitter over nothing:)
Edit: Perhaps a better phrasing: Before, if you asked "will this useful Google product be here in a year", I would answer "yes". After, I could only say "maybe". And that made all the difference.
Google Reader was successful and growing. It wasn’t killed on its own merits.
It was killed because Google decided Facebook was an existential threat to them so they had to do everything they could to make Google+ work, including killing otherwise successful and popular products like Reader because, killing it may lead to a slight increase in G+ adoption.
Even now, 10 yrs on, that makes no sense (their justification, not yours). How do you convince a bunch of blog authors to switch from 'free-to-air' and searchable everywhere RSS feeds, to move into closed social media platform?
It seems like idiotic management making idiotic decisions completely out of touch with the userbase has been with us since the dawn of the web. Just this week, Spotify are turning the mobile app into a stinking pile of TikTok.
Speaking of blogs, I wonder if the death of Google Reader led to the death of blogs in general. It was about that time that people seemed to stop writing blogs and moved to Facebook/Twitter and their generally far shorter (and to me, less interesting) postings.
Monetising by adding ads to a content, they fetched from other sites was a questionable back than. So, they couldn't just add ads to the reader easily.
They were believing google plus would be popular.
So, having a closed social network, where they could control everything and put ads without any complains makes sense.
Besides, Reader was not that popular among the general public.
it doesn't matter that it wasn't that popular amongst the general public, they should have viewed it as having an enthusiastic user base and since sharing and commenting was part of reader, would be a way to encourage people to add content to google+. A social network is only as valuable as the content that gets placed on it. Killing reader shut off a mechanisms for sharing. I went from sharing articles I saw on RSS feeds via reader to a group of friends to sharing them on facebook.
I miss the leisure of just clicking a button to flag "hey look at this" and having a backlog queue of things by friends also thought was interesting. Nothing has really come around and recreated that simplicity and UX.
>How do you convince a bunch of blog authors to switch from 'free-to-air' and searchable everywhere RSS feeds, to move into closed social media platform?
I don't think the idea was to convince bloggers to switch, but rather to stop one good distribution channel from potentially competing with social media. Google kept Blogger alive, because people can still publish there AND distribute links via social media.
In hindsight, it seems that Google Reader could have offered a continuing alternative to social media. If Google had kept throwing resources behind it, they could have held a unique advantage against Facebook. It never would have gotten as big, but they still could have pushed it as an alternative and made more money than they ever got from Google+.
It wasn't killed in favor of Google+. It was killed because nobody wanted to work on it and nobody wanted to fund it.
Reader had been running on a shoestring budget for years with only one or two engineers. It was beginning to show its cracks, and at the time there was a giant push to move to Kennedy (the UI design pattern with whitespace everywhere and one or two red buttons). There weren't enough engineers to do that migration and solve some of the underlying problems.
Nobody wanted to work on it because there wasn't anything in it you could use for promo. "Kept Reader running" on your perf packet would get you a Meets Expectations at best. It might be seen negatively by some. To get a promo you needed big sexy new features. And at the time there was a promo factory that was sucking up all of the prime engineers (cough Google+ cough). It was also popular among employees, and there was a "Save Reader" campaign, but nobody cared enough to actually try to transfer in.
No director wanted it either. It wasn't profitable. It wasn't driving traffic to other Google properties. It was basically a money sink and nobody wanted to be tied to it as a failure.
Source: I was on Google+ (it was a promo factory). My team worked on a number of features that were meant to be used by third parties to tie into Plus. One of those was the comments system. Before the Google+ YouTube comment debacle there were plans to offer that comment system directly to third parties (similar to Disqus). We pitched Google+ taking over Reader and using it as a proving ground for that comment system. As a side bonus, blogs that signed on would already have a (hopefully) vibrant comment history. Management didn't see the value. Google+ comments rolled out to YouTube, it was a disaster, and all those lines of code were lost in time, like tears in rain.
It's always seemed strange to me how singularly obsessed Google culture seems to be with the idea of promotions. All the weird things Google does seem to come down to "that's what gets people promoted". But... why? It doesn't seem like Googlers are systematically underpaid, so why is promotion such a focus?
Maybe this is part of the reason my own stint at Google didn't work out so well.
I think there's a complicated answer to that, with a ton of potential reasons and side effects. I can boil my reasons down to 3:
1.) I was L5, and while there were a ton of great L6s, there were not an insignificant number of ones who were terrible. I think L6 would have been the right level for me; L7 was beyond me at the time. People at higher levels don't really seem to work any harder. That translates to the feeling that I'm getting less pay than I deserve. This is why I ultimately left, and I immediately found a job at L6 equivalency.
2.) My manager pushed me towards promotion. My manager was L6, going for L7, and he had way too many direct reports (more than 20). His plan was to move up and have me fill in the vacuum behind him. Without someone to take on that role he was getting denied his promotion.
3.) I wasn't a Google lifer. I wanted to work for a smaller company where I have more of an impact on the bottom line, and I cared about what I was working on, maybe a startup. Unfortunately I have the three deadly "M"s for startup founders (Marriage, Mortgage, and Munchkins). My plan is to wait until the kids are out (1 "M" down). I could get the house paid off by that point with the extra equity that comes in a promotion (2 "M"s down). And I supported my spouse when she started her own business; she wants to support me in mine (that's all 3 "M"s). TL;DR - A promotion would have allowed me to close out all of my debts, freeing me up to not work at Google.
But I think on top of all of that, you have to get people to want to work on your project. Some projects are fun or have social clout, but come with no chance of promotion (I worked on Memegen for 4 years because it was fun). Some projects suck, but they come with promo opportunities. Projects that suck and don't come with a promise of promo don't get engineers applying to transfer in (this is what killed Reader).
Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate you sharing this insight. I still miss Reader even though it's been 10 years (10 years, holy crap), but this at least explains the 'why'.
> It wasn't driving traffic to other Google properties.
It wasn't driving measurable traffic. If the choice is A) people loving one of your products or B) people hating your brand. Behind which door is the money?
Imagine if, instead of simply shutting down Reader, Google had gradually and subtly integrated it more and more in to Google+ over time. Things could have turned out very different!
Imagine of Google+ had had a proper API for automatic posting. If I remeber right, there still wasn't one when Pages dropped.
So unlike Twitter and Facebook, I couldn't just set up my Wordpress site to feed all my posts to Google Plus. I had to go and manually post them.
They also had the real names policy still, so I have to post as my real name instead of the name I post online with everywhere else.
Plus was so poorly mishandled because Google does not understand people at all. You can't boul everyone down to a handful of easy categories to make it easier for alogrythms to manage.
This makes great business sense for Google. Personally though, it's the reason I decided to de-Google. I was running some dev stuff from my personal account, - just messing around and too lazy to set up a separate dev account. Then I started to hear stories of people getting locked out of their google account because they did... Something. Something totally unknowable that triggered some flagging system and boom, everything is gone. So I started looking alternative services, one company per service. The last things I use Google for are Maps, Photos, Android backup. The only data I care about are my contacts and photos, and I keep a separate backup of both.
I was satisfied with this, but a few months ago I set up a new gmail account for a business. I hadn't set up the real business email yet so I used this email so sign up a bunch of other services that our business needed. Tripadvisor, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Google maps (registered with our actual verifiable business address), Google webmaster/SEO stuff with our actual real website. I spent a full day doing this. Then I was busy for a week on other stuff and when I went back to use this account it was permanently locked. No recourse, just a message saying the account violated something and was permanently locked - with a text box to write a complaint if I felt this way unfair.
Of course, I did write the complaint, as politely as possible, including my business details and personal email. But I never heard back and I assume no one actually reads those.
I permanently lost access to the TikTok account (no big deal except that I had got a good name. But I made the account under duress from my business partner anyway). I was able to gain access to the Facebook easily. Tripadvisor took me most of a day to regain access. Google maps still, several months later, has the wrong name for our business.
Moral of the story: if you're using Google as a primary service for anything without keeping backups elsewhere, maybe... Don't.
So? You just unsubscribe from any that are shit. Unlike on google where you can't delete a site from the search results (which you can on kagi btw, which is great).
It can only be empty if every website joined your plot. You might be shocked to find out how many respectable publishers are still out there.
But lets stick to the technology, first things first, how are you going to get me to subscribe to your feed? I just don't see it happening. Finding subscribers is incredibly hard.
You might be able to get one feed into my aggregator but I just press delete?
And there are websites that let you pay for add free.
The original point is simply that RSS would have gone the way of the web, in terms of the presence of advertising, had it become mainstream.
There being workarounds or other models possible doesn't change that and it also applies to the web today. As another commentor pointed out, RSS would have unique difficulties for adblockers as well.
This was a solved problem in 2012. Ads are stories and can easily filtered skipped. Duplicate story checkers filter based on title/content similarity. Software available for iOS can be limited compared to windows or linux.
If the intent of killing Google Reader was to push me towards Google+, then it was a terrible miscalculation on their part. I steered clear from it until it finally died.
I jumped to Feedly, then I switched to Inoreader for a UI closer to Google Reader.
There are many fine RSS readers, but what I miss most was the social and community features.
The communities that spring up around things like GReader are like lightning in a bottle. Perhaps the companies that can afford to build things like that have concluded that other forms of social media are more profitable.
There still are niches of the internet that operate like a book club for excitable nerds, but they can be short-lived. Most eventually succumb to politics, lecturers, eternal September, and/or a zero-sum debate-team mentality.
On the other hand, I never used a thing in Google Reader other than subscribe to feeds. It's probably inevitable though that it would have become more of a social media product over time.
> It's probably inevitable though that it would have become more of a social media product over time.
Personally I would have welcomed that.
Google Reader did essentially become a social media product over time. By the end it was the primary social network for many of the people in my research area. I was mystified when they shut it down to redirect resources to yet another Facebook clone rather on building on a successful foundation that was already present.
By now most people realize that this is just how Google operates, by shuffling resources around in a blind panic. But many people can point to the first product shutdown that crystalized the realization for them. Google Reader was mine, and judging by the comments in this thread it served the same purpose for others as well.
Perhaps, but they were one more thing to log into, and the Reader/Gmail integration was unparalleled. Also, for those of us who really liked the simple Reader UI, nothing really ever replaced it. Not even the explicit attempts to mimic it.
I never used Reader but I see this question a lot, and feel that the framing of it clouds insight.
The problem isn't making things, it's all of the barriers to entry. For example, say it takes 2 weeks to make something. Since most of us have to work, that means a 1 year commitment to save enough to do it over a vacation. Which is really a 2 year commitment until a vacation, or 1 year of grinding, or the sacrifice of vacations altogether, or nights and weekends for an indeterminate amount of time. On top of that, most people struggle to save 10% of their income. So if a project has even a $10,000 budget, that requires $100,000 of income. The numbers quickly become so insurmountable that an adult will almost never find the time that they had as a teenager. A decade may pass in the blink of an eye with no forward progress on life goals (that's happened to me twice now). And most projects take 6 months to 2 years or more..
So major projects can only really happen through a corporate structure or with outside funding. Then the problem becomes organizational, or founders spend most of their time fundraising. Sure, occasionally someone makes something. But traditionally there are 100 failures we never hear about. Today that number might be more like 1,000 or 10,000.
Google axing projects on a whim is power imbalance. They hold all of the cards, have almost unbounded potential, but are so hyper-focused on profit today that they can't seem to innovate on anything. Major corporations today are basically black holes sucking up all available capital and talent, performing no better than small 2-5 person teams would if they had adequate resources.
I'm sure someone will react vehemently against what I'm saying. But we're discussing this on Y Combinator's website, a startup accelerator founded on the idea that small teams can pivot faster than the biggest companies. After writing this out, it seems that only startups can save us. Are any working on a Reader alternative, I wonder.
Also I dream of the day when the musical chairs of competition stop and we move to a post-scarcity society. I thought that was going to happen around the year 2000, but if anything we've slid backwards since wealth inequality is the highest it's been in human history.
One reason, which I don't see mentioned a whole lot, is that far fewer places offer a real RSS feed (complete with the article / post in question) than once did. If they offer an RSS feed at all.
I looked at aggregation options for news recently, and discovered that walled gardens and the use of custom CMS's by news organisations have made RSS aggregation of say breaking news all but impossible.
Sure, you can still get blogs, reddit, hacker news etc. But the days of essentially every website having an RSS feed are gone.
> It was killed because Google decided Facebook was an existential threat to them
(citation needed)
This really feels like your (and a popular) reading of the situation, but isn’t as unequivocal as you make it seem.
To me it’s more like the iMac not having a floppy drive or no USBA ports on the newer MacBooks. Google saw that the web was trending away from blogs and written content. They removed one of the tools that people used to keep up with blogs and written content and accelerated the decline of blogs and written content.
People didn’t like it at the time, but they were (for the most part) right.
And yet here we are, discussing things on a platform that is very akin to the web that Reader advanced. There was always going to be a market for non-Web 2.0 social media junk, albeit smaller. And frankly, trying to copy already successful iterations almost always fails (Google+). The resources that would have been required to maintain or even update Reader were minimal-- they were already wasting money on far more expensive dead end projects that were never going to make money.
I'm fairly sure someone here can provide you with a proper citation, but in the meanwhile I was very much online here and elsewhere during that time and IIRC it was common knowledge at the time and AFAIK nobody came up with a better hypothesis.
I think it was the first thing they'd killed which had been around for quite a while, still had devoted users, and Google didn't offer a replacement. If you look at the graveyard, the pre-Reader things they killed were things which had flopped (e.g. Buzz), things which were no longer relevant (e.g Gears), acquisitions, and mergers where they had two redundant products (e.g. Google Video).
Despite the prior “more wood behind fewer arrows” announcement, it might be the first time Google killed something that was popular with Googlers. I think it was an “Elves leave Middle-Earth” moment for my friends on campus. Memegen was full of “we can launch (ultradoomed project) but can’t keep Reader alive?” snark, less good-natured than usual. I’ve heard it blamed on Vic and G+, actual security issues from scraping Javascript, or just falling behind on the promo-driven infra treadmill that threatens everything mature.
I haven't heard the phrase "more wood behind fewer arrows" before, but I am pretty sure that never in the history of the evolution of projectiles was that tradeoff ever taken in that direction.
That's what makes it so amazing!!! It was a delicious self-parody. I remember reading it and thinking it made absolutely no sense as a metaphor: just imagine the poor archer being told "instead of having 15 arrows to take with you today, we've decided to give you three really heavy arrows"... that was the announcement that really made Google product management feel like a laughing stock to me, and is what I return to thinking about every time they kill another project.
The "more wood" is in the bow, not the arrows. A bigger, heavier bow will shoot arrows with more force, but will take more effort, strength, and time to operate, so shoot fewer arrows harder.
The force of the "more wood" is behind the arrow when pulling it back and shooting (and once you've released, the entire bow is behind it). I get what you're saying though.
I always thought it was something like a comparison between ballistae with fewer shots and larger arrows (javelin size, really) doing more damage, and a storm of smaller regular arrows. Maybe I was being too generous with my interpretation.
> The background seems an oft-used phrase in Sun Microsystems by the former CEO, "all the wood behind a single arrow" which means focus on a single product and be the best in it.
> When deer hunting .. "Real men bring only one arrow. They know how to aim (and they remember to take plenty of time when aiming), and they put all the wood behind that one arrow."
They even managed to find a usage of the same space of metaphor from Apple!
> While the layoffs are intended to reduce operating costs, Apple said it trimmed its technology portfolio to streamline development efforts. “Time to market is very important to me,” Amelio said. “With the narrowing of our focus, we can put more wood behind the arrow.”
> —Stephen Howard, “Narrowing tech focus, Apple cuts 4,100 jobs,” MacWeek, March 17, 1997
I'm a fan of how the phrase gets dumber the more you think about it, and how it's just a way to try to make "put all your eggs in one basket" sound like a good thing. It's delightfully stupid.
In videos I've seen of tests of arrows against armour the shafts usually break, so that the weight of the shaft does not fully go into the penetration.
Stiffer shorter arrows have, therefore, a better chance. Thus the men fighting heavily armoured troops may choose crossbows, which with their long reloading time would literally trade number of shots for heavier shots.
Well putting more wood behind fewer arrows in this case is desirable for them. The point is there doesn't have to be historical precedent for a figure of speech. It just has to effectively communicate something.
Well I did business studies aswell so it might be management speak.
Raise the mass of the arrow and it'll hit with more force. There's a sweet spot for piercing heavy cloth armor. If the arrows are too light, they'll bounce right off.
Well there's the other possible interpretation where wood refers to the bow instead of the arrows. Thus, the larger bow can impart larger momentum to each arrow
The soda can anecdote made me realize that “We give you free soda and after-hours pizza, so you can ruin your health for the company.” matured unceremoniously into “If you want to ruin your health, pay for it like any other member of society.”
Realize it, and “embrace the warmth of leaving home.”
Indeed; it felt magical, but was a solution in search of a problem... which was ultimately found in Google Docs having very similar live editing ability.
Also its rollout was done in the most ridiculous way possible. For a product that relies on your workmates or friends to have access, they didn't let those workmates or friends have access. Then by the time they did, the hype had worn off, and people had moved elsewhere.
I can't tell if you're talking about internal rollout of public because the same problems existed internally. One person on your team would request it because they bought the hype but not everyone had access so only that one person would play with it and the social aspect of it just wasn't there. I tried to make it useful for a couple weeks but my impression at the end was the same as when they did the TGIF demo: mostly pointless fluff.
Meh the ad business was pretty established well before 2013 when Reader shut down. RSS was declining well before that. Google acquired Doubleclick in 2008 aka what became the real Adwords in its prime.
I personally don't expect tech conglomerates to be the ideal solution for niche markets. But I don't see many people providing good arguments why alternatives like Feedly didn't take off if there was really a strong market demand for RSS.
And I say that was an uber-fan of RSS back in the day.
Yeah. I think what really killed RSS was a change in people's behavior. Twitter, Reddit, and other social media sites gained traction as link sharing communities and RSS became less relevant after that. Instead of subscribing to an RSS feed, you could just follow your favorite sites on Twitter, for example.
Attention was shifting from basement blogs and projects to professionally made content for the web. Which would only have one paragraph or a title on the RSS feed and the rest was on the site with ads.
That's like saying "how is IRC dead today" when Slack/Discord/WhatsApp/Zoom/etc exists or Yahoo style portals when Google exists (yes Yahoo is still a real business) or "how are horses a dead transportation" when cars exist in 1930s America because horses can still walk on roads (aka takes a minimal investment to support).
Sure they still work and will continue to work but let's be honest it's a super niche technology and it didn't survive/flourish because it was flawed and fundamentally nerdy option people stopped caring about.
Supporting RSS takes the bare minimum of effort. Yet even in 2013 (aka a decade ago) RSS was declining in usage before Reader was killed.
I support open platforms but RSS had a super noise-to-signal UX and I personally don't miss it.
Google didn't kill RSS, they killed the best RSS product at the time and accelerated a dying protocol that would still be only used by HN's demographic and little else.
Why do I care if it’s a “niche” technology as far as other people subscribing if it is still supported by publishers? I can’t think of a single site that I go to and say “I sure wish this site supported RSS” and doesn’t?
Using NetNewsWire and subscribing to subreddits with NNW on one half of my iPad and the Reddit app on the other half is still a great experience for instance.
I click on the date on NNW and the post opens in the Reddit app.
> Why do I care if it’s a “niche” technology as far as other people subscribing if it is still supported by publishers?
If it is a niche technology it will fall out from requirements docs and from CMS implementations.
One can already see that many news sites only provide headlines, not even teasers in the feed and different site generator based blogs (using Hugo and such) forget to create feeds as well.
My feed reader still provides value to me, but I regularly stumble over sites providing interesting content irregularly but no feed. (For irregularly posting blogs it is especially important as manually checking is annoying)
One could also embed an image on the text or do textual ads in the article. However market is too small, thus they do the simple thing which is limiting the value of the feed, till nobody cares about it anymore and they turn it off.
I think it's 'dead' in comparison to the way it used to be used.
I was actually just looking for RSS feeds for some of the top news sites, and a lot of them have specialized RSS feeds for a certain category but not for the entire site. (I had to eventually settle for Newsweek)
I genuinely don't know, so this is an honest question. Nowadays, outside of podcast feeds, what's the incentive for media outlets to provide RSS feeds? Isn't it just a fringe assortment of techies still using it? (To be clear, I'm part of that fringe.)
It's much easier to whine about Google than accept trends in consumer behaviour.
Programmers get nostalgic about their pet technologies that even the majority of tech-denographic (and often themselves) don't even use when given the option. I don't blame them but they aren't always honest about their favourite niche tech simply being niche technology.
I think the bug factor was Facebook. There were places making money selling ads in feeds but they weren’t making within an order of magnitude what Facebook promised. Google+ was a botched reaction to that but I do wonder what Google could have done embracing the open web instead and actually trying to monetize Reader or provide top-notch feed ads. It might not have made Facebook-level rates but it also wouldn’t have soured a generation on their business.
I wonder how feedly is doing, their higher tier plans focusing on enterprise/analysis/teams suggest the demand for rss still among power users / consumers.
Hi, this is Petr from Feedly, we're doing really well and yes, our focus shifted towards Enterprise - Threat Intelligence and Market Intelligence use cases. Individual users can use our Pro+ plan to access Feedly AI to leverage the power of searching through RSS feeds to get the signals more easily and quickly.
I stopped having a positive view of Google due to their poor explanation for shutting down Google Reader.
They explained they were shutting it down due to declining usage and they are pouring all of their energy into fewer product, however, as Google had a reputation for building cool and free stuff back then, it seemed reasonable to me that they could have maintain it in a frozen state or provide a longer transition period. This invited alternative theories about intentionally killing RSS for Google+.
Yikes. Inspite of leadership changes by hiring from Oracle, it’s clear GCP will be stuck in 3rd place for a while. You can’t treat long standing customers (even with a modest spend) like dirt and hope to somehow edge out Azure or AWS.
I'm usually one for blaming the big company and arcane processes, but this squarely your fault. You missed emails asking for verification, and had your account suspended because of it. This will happen to you again on AWS or any other provider.
Stadia was disappointing, but they refunded everyone everything they had ever spent. Short of keeping the service running for free forever I'm not sure what more they could have done.
Did you saw the title of the email? "Important Information for your Account". It reads more like an informational email. How many important emails you've received this week?
Could've been worded "[Action Required]", "Account Suspension Notice" etc. And they didn't even drop a notification when my servers were shutdown.
"This will happen to you again on AWS or any other provider."
Can't really agree to this. I read all the horror stories and GCloud is the only one who would suspend you for something like this. I need to be very clear, the suspension is not due to fraudulent issue. It's due to "missing some paperwork". I've been paying using the same card for the past 4 yrs.
Then voila they choose to suddenly dropped you an informational email and suspend you 10 days later.
How many saas apps are you using? 10, 20? Imagine if everyone pulls up something like this would you even have time to run your business?
See similar horror stories below. AWS doesn't pull this shit.
And lastly, when something like this happens, the minimal they could do is to get my servers back asap. But you know what? I've been trying all my means to get them to it back at least temp but nobody there gives a fuck. It's all the "none of my business" attitude between their teams.
Here's one more thing that I didn't mentioned. I replied to their verification team 3 times within an hour last friday. You know what happened? Their support team told me "their verification team" already replied to ask for more details when they haven't even read my replies (done all checks on my end can 100% confirm my msg was the last one out). And they've been dead silence over 3 days already. They don't give a fuck about screwing you and don't understand or care about the criticalness of their role.
I did, and I saw who it was from. There's absolutely no way that I would ignore an email from my cloud provider like that.
> I need to be very clear, the suspension is not due to fraudulent issue. It's due to "missing some paperwork". I've been paying using the same card for the past 4 yrs.
You're putting words in my mouth here. I never said it was due to fraud, it's due to you not filling in the paperwork they asked you to do in a timeframe, where they clearly state what will happen if you don't follow the instructions. Again, many providers will ask for extra information (your bank for example), and if you don't follow the procedure, you'll have your services suspended.
> See similar horror stories below. AWS doesn't pull this shit.
> And lastly, when something like this happens, the minimal they could do is to get my servers back asap.
I disagree - you were told what was going to happen if you didn't do it. It's not their fault you didn't read your email. The minimal _you_ can do is read the email from your cloud provider.
> And they've been dead silence over 3 days already.
In all honesty, spam has taught me to ignore any email that has a subject line like "Important information about your account". Not saying it's good, but it's deeply trained into me and automatic, like ignoring things that look like banner ads.
Your whole story boils down to you not properly reading an email that even says "Important Information". I don't understand how that part isn't your fault. They even tell you that your account will be suspended in the email. How do you not have a special filter to route emails from critical service providers? And I don't agree that GCP is "the only one that will suspend you for things like this". AWS can and has suspended accounts for arcane reasons though support was reasonably helpful enough
I sympathise with the abysmal support though obviously. GCP has horrid support and deserve to be called out. I wouldn't recommend GCP to anyone
> Your whole story boils down to you not properly reading an email that even says "Important Information".
Because 99% of emails labeled "Important Information for your Account" get discarded by spam filters including the one in your brain. In most cases it's nothing more than just another bad spam/CEO scam/phishing attempt.
Clear communication is important - a proper subject line would be "Your GCE account #XYZ is going to be terminated unless verified until 2023/01/01".
Again, how is it that an email, that came from your cloud service provider, titled "Important Information Regarding Your Google Account" was ignored because of the "spam filter in your brain"? Again, this really sounds like an excuse for not reading important emails from your provider. It doesn't even seem to have been marked as spam by Gmail and is from Google Payments which should already have sent off alarm bells. I'm not saying that responding to their mail would 100% have led to your account staying on cause GCP is generally pretty shit but this part of your article is basically handing all responsibility of poorly handling important communication off to someone else
I suggest once you move to AWS you filter and route all emails from these "special" senders to a separate tag that always notifies you on incoming emails so you don't miss them
> but this part of your article is basically handing all responsibility of poorly handling important communication off to someone else
I'm not the person you replied to. Anyway, I'd expect of a company like Google to not word their e-mails in the same way cyber-criminals do - and for what it's worth, many cyber-security training programs actually teach that vaguely worded but "important sounding" subjects are a key indicator of something being fishy.
Ah sorry I didn't notice you weren't the same person
While the subject line could be better, the subject is not the only indicator of the importance of the email. It is coming from "Google Payments" and as a customer of GCP, why wouldn't you treat every email that comes from Google with an equal amount of importance even if there are false positives? As I said, having a filter of email addresses routed to a specific tag, all marked important and notifications for every email that lands there is one of the most basic things you can do to not avoid important notices
I don't see the issue with the subject line. I get the general rule to not mark everything important but in this case the mail IS important
> I don't see the issue with the subject line. I get the general rule to not mark everything important but in this case the mail IS important
In a world where people get sometimes hundreds of emails a day, on top of a constant onslaught of spam, scam, phishing and otherwise malicious email, it is basic netiquette of summarizing what exactly you want from the receiver.
Additionally, a lot of people seem to have taken buzzfeed-style clickbait headlines as the role model for communication and that may be a factor here as well.
How do you know? Sender lines are faked all the time. If the subject line reads like spam, I'm not looking at who sent it. I just delete it out of pure muscle memory.
Again, not saying this is a good habit, but it is an understandable habit.
> How do you know? Sender lines are faked all the time.
by that logic, you shouldn't trust any email unless it's signed and you've verified the sender. If the sender is your cloud provider, you read the email and decide from there whether or not it's worthwhile.
"Important Information for your Account" is a marketing email 99% of the time. Emails which are actually important normally tell you why they're important in the subject.
I get “IMPORTANT!” in headings from products I brought online. They’re not important at all. You’re aware of this being normal misuse too, because you use the internet.
Suspension, banning or deletion warnings should be labelled clearly as such in the title. Procedures need to reflect the actual environment.
My work email is treated very different to my personal email though, and my work email with external organisations I work with is treated differently to email I receive internally.
Doesn't matter. Not only does the title say "Important Notice...", the sender is Google Payments. Even if it is a false positive, why would you not pay attention to every email coming from Google when you're a customer of GCP?
Ok, so putting that aside, they haven't replied in 24 hours by time of us writing, because it's a weekend in between. Do you pay for support on Google cloud?
> Verdict: Never ever trust Google Clown Platform with your business
I would be more inclined to trust Google than people who make digs at their service providers publicly, to be honest.
Google Reader was a publish-subscribe platform with chronological/per site newsfeed whereas Google+ was a peer-to-peer platform with an algorithm newsfeed. I didn't appreciate the difference at the time, but the philosophy was completely different and I couldn't come up with any idea that could fit Google Reader into the Google+ vision.
This strikes me as similar to the spirit of Reader, though of course without the site-specific subscription of RSS. Conceptually, the idea of including RSS results in the stream wouldn't have been much of a stretch.
Regardless, that feature was axed pretty early in G+ history.
What irked most about the forced amalgamation of G+ and other Google services was the context sheer and violation of boundaries and social significance of various activities. In particular, suddenly G+ conversations based on YouTube links were now listed at YouTube under the video's comments, and comments from YouTube now appeared in G+ discussion streams. I responded by deleting all my own G+ posts of YouTube links, and deleting all content from the linked YouTube account (I'd used it little regardless).
When G+ finally merged G+ and YouTube profiles, after about a year of my repeatedly stating "no, don't do that", and based solely on the fact that I'd used the same email address to register for each, it was a tremendous violation. Numerous other people felt similarly.
The three top stories on HN that day were about the forced merger. Two of them were links to my own posts on G+. The original links are of course now dead, though I archived nearly all my own posts at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.
It also coincided with a persistent trend of HN itself no longer featuring random blog posts heavily but rather a) mostly popular news sites like NYTimes that finally started understanding the web demanded clickbait/Twitter-friendly high volume articles (where no one reads the article but shares the headline) and b) blogs that went viral via Twitter/FB/etc.
That was the new reality a decade ago. Social media apps was how you found blog posts, not RSS feeds.
I remember Reader dying and within a year finding a replacement but still moving on because the high noise-to-signal RSS simply wasn't doing it for me.
It's possible we all stopped using RSS because of Google but it's also possible we simply found replacements when prodded. Just like how us torrent obsessed pirates eventually moved on from harddrives full of MP3s to lazily curating Spotify accounts and from AVIs to Netflix. Google Reader was a far-too-early end of an era, but the fact we all didn't jump to a competitor like we did with Digg->Reddit was probably not just Google's fault.
Sure but I'm still speaking for the hundreds of thousands of tech people who didnt keep using RSS even when given alternatives. Feedly was around after Reader (started in 2008, the same year of my 14yr old HN account and 5 years before Reader shut down), even I used it for 6 months after Reader. You can pretend Google is why no one cares about RSS but I'm skeptical it's the root reason.
+1 (something else that was killed by google but still everyone knows that means)
I used freshrss, and got to this article via RSS as well. It's my only source of news. I'm usually the first to know about new stuff in my circle of friends because of my carefully curated RSS feeds.
The killer feature of Reader was sharing. Not only could one see posts by sites they "follow", but could also see whatever their friends shared and chose to either read that single article or follow the site.
Notice any similarities? We have moved, just not to another RSS reader, but rather to G+/facebook/twitter/whatever, platforms which had that social element. Coincidentally, it was a time when g+ was failing to gain expected traction.
At this point I see almost no content from my friends on most social media. It’s almost entirely ads or high-follower/influencer content guiding it. What stuff comes from friends is just reposts from influencer pages.
> That was the new reality a decade ago. Social media apps was how you found blog posts, not RSS feeds.
The big social media influencers at the time, however, were using RSS feeds to find the stuff they would take viral. So it still had a beneficial effect on the environment as a whole. The tool itself can be niche in its user base but punch well above its weight if the users are influential.
I understand you completely. For me also it was a turning point, but the real nail in the coffin was when they shut down Inbox. That was when it went from a new Google product being interesting and getting in there early to every Google product being eyed with distrust and reluctance.
I had the same. After Reader, I was a bit grumpy but, well, found other alternatives.
After Inbox tho... I went through the 5 stages of grief and started degooglifying my life. Made an okay setup with neomutt (and TripIt*) which I can trust would stay around longer than any Google ad-focused product.
For me the killer feature was the way emails were (automatically) contextually organized. Instead of your inbox being chronological, it would create "bundles" of emails that were related based on sender, or subject line, or content. You'd have a bundle for each of: your JIRA emails, github emails, bank emails, cron messages, threads with your boss or coworkers, travel emails, receipts, etc. Bundles were created automatically and accurately. Labeling like in gmail would let you create custom bundles if needed. You could archive/label/refile/mark-read an entire bundle of emails at once. It was extremely efficient.
IMO there's too much context switching when your email is sorted chronologically. Much easier to deal with all emails of a certain type at once. You can (manually) organize your email with labels or folders, and go through each one, but it's just not the same.
EDIT: there were other neat features like pinning and snoozing that have since made their way into gmail and other apps, but IMO they worked better with the bundle system than they do without
And location based unpinning. I was traveling between two cities for work and there were certain stuff that I wanted to focus on one city, other stuff in the other (also private stuff at hometown).
The bundling worked really well. It was time based as well, so you'd end up with this weeks "Updates" bundle and last weeks, which meant I could then scan last weeks to make sure I had everything then delete the whole bundle.
Somehow the way it dealt with notification emails was also really good. I was able to keep on top of github notifications and the became useful rather than noise. A combination of the bundling + displaying the most pertinent link and info instead of the subject line.
I had someone a few years previous say they had never seen a bigger Google fanboy.
With the death of Reader I pretty much slowly pulled away and barely use Google anything these days.
Another commentor mentioned, it was the reason. This was right in the middle of the push for Google+.
It was never explocitly stated as a reason, but Google+ Pages rolled out just before or after Reader qas killed and its clear that the intention qas to drive content producers to run Pages for their blogs and websites instead of just letting people use RSS. Also, they wanted to encourage users to go to Plus and Pages to get feeds, bot RSS.
Google had killed a lot of other products but this was the first that clearly felt incredibly malicious and was the start of the end of "Don't be evil."
Yes, it was something I used, but also I think Reader was what drove the linkblog ecosystem, behind the scenes. Linkbloggers subscribed to interesting feeds, and amplified whatever they thought was interesting.
By interfering with that ecosystem I think Google received out-sized negative feedback. They would have been much better off just leaving it running.
Yes, this is why I've never considered Google Cloud and have kept everything on AWS. (Even when a client says the choice is Azure or Google... I'll take that Microsoft poison.) I have zero confidence anything Google produces will be around in a few years.
This is too bad too, because I have used Google's Cloud offering for some hobby projects (specifically related to Gmail and spam filtering, because... why would Gmail's spam filtering function?) and it seems really good.
> I switched from viewing Google mostly positively to more skeptically
I think I share the feeling. I feel more and more disconnect from their stuff every day. Same thing with their hardware. Original Google Wifi was great, the Google Nest Wifi Pro is not. You cannot listen Rage Against The Machine's Bullet in the Head in their Youtube Music Premium without popups, that you cannot disable. The only answer from their customer support seems to be: "please, unsubscribe". The search engine feels also worse and worse. If you put anything more specific, all the links lead to fake sites. Youtube is still quite good, mostly because of the content not found elsewhere. In general I care Google a lot less these days, and I feel it is a mutual feeling.
For me it was Google Talk. It hit the sweet spot of a lightweight chat app that didn't take any configuration or convincing for my non-techie friends. I still miss it.
If Google cared about RSS, they would have had RSS support in Chrome. They don't have it to this date. When Chrome launched other browsers had RSS support of some sort.
Are you sure? I distinctively remember them announcing it and being promptly mocked by people asking when was the date they were going to kill it. Did they abandon the desktop version before a stable release?
I believe you (I don’t use Chrome) but that doesn’t mean the support isn’t there. It could just be that it’s not on by default or that you need to add feeds manually.
2013 They delete everyone's subscriptions AND everyone's subscribers. Blogs come and go every day in large numbers. No more subscribers means it is time to let it go and go do something else. After years building an audience google moved in to embrace, extend, and extinguish. At the time I had many thousands of RSS subscriptions (in my own aggregator), I could see the post frequency decline and the comments dry up by the thousands.
2011 They killed blog search.
2007-2009 They hired Kevin Marks, Technorati's lead architect. And in 2014 Technorati died.
2005, Google, MSN Search and Yahoo created an initiative to help kill the eco system of organic links in comment. They chose to promote the Nofollow attribute to portray everyone and their references as spam. Spam is defined here as not obeying their webdesign orders. We might have gone a bit over the top with etiquette and "rules of civility" say 200 years ago but instruction to treat your guests as spammers??? Punishment if you don't comply!
You may link to a limited number of things from your article/blog post but it must be approved materials following their instructions. Sometimes one needs to point out others are wrong on the internet. It is arguably what we do online? I write down my thoughts, you tell me I'm wrong? The idea one should not link to the "wrong" publication is not constructive to the dialog.
But you can still post your articles to google wave and knol and to your google pages (joking) How about under that amateurish cookie banner defacing blogspot or google groups? usenet?
They are endlessly tinkering with the search algorithm trying to find worthy results, dictating how we should shoot web (or else!), but everyone and their mum already gave up making websites for fun. Even developers who could put something together in a few hours at best have websites with just their resume on it.
Its like.. Google talk > google hangout > google chat. Ahh, they finally stopped talking.
Oddly enough, this was a watershed thing for me as well. It was when I finally had it driven into my head that it's mistake to rely too much on anything Google offers.
I say "oddly enough" because I never really used Google Reader. I did (and still do) use RSS heavily, but I use a different reader for it. But Google's actions struck me because RSS was such a fundamental aspect of the way things worked that axing Reader without offering a replacement seem to me like them axing search itself without offering a replacement.
If Reader can suffer such a fate, anything Google does can as well.
To me, Google Reader was the best social media site that I ever used. A lot of my friends used it: we followed each other and we would be sharing articles that showed up in our feeds that we found interesting. So most days I had these curated suggestions in my feed. We could also see each other's comments. It was awesome.
Reader hit personally, hangouts / circles, convincing friends to move to failed google ventures hit socially. Nexus hardware also didn't help. While I still use a lot of google products, I would never recommend google services to anyone again.
Yep, that was also the point when I started distrusting Google. I was a big Google Reader user and have some dozen geeky friends and we used to share our favourite posts (using the friends following feature).
The service feed.ly, even its free version, seemed have implemented most of GReader's functionality. That said, somehow the vibe offered by GReader is gone, and I started to visit feed.ly less and less often.
Nixing Wave was the beginning of the end for me. I know it was supposed to be some kind of failed experiment, and some features got rolled into Drive, but I had a bunch of Waves with my roommates and I miss it now.
Edit: Perhaps a better phrasing: Before, if you asked "will this useful Google product be here in a year", I would answer "yes". After, I could only say "maybe". And that made all the difference.