Comment by vocatus_gate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vocatus_gate | Hacker News Reader

I'm still puzzled and annoyed by Google's random abandonment of so many of their projects, even ones that are heavily used (Reader), often without warning or stated rationale. Honestly I just avoid new Google products because I never know when they'll get randomly abandoned or axed.

The scatterbrain landscape of Google's messaging offerings is just one example of this. GChat, Talk, Hangouts, Messenger, Allo, Duo, Google+ Chat, etc. Can someone explain to me why TF they have so many messaging apps? It's confusing, annoying, and requires too much onramp effort to install yet another messaging app just to talk to friends.

At this point people always retort "Well, Google is a fast-moving development environment! Throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks! Fail fast!" Yeah, sure, that's great and everything, but if they never actually commit to maintaining the things they build, it doesn't matter how cool or innovative $LatestProduct is, because it won't be around long enough for anybody to find out.

Google engineer Barry Schwartz once said:

"In prospect, capability seems way more important than useability. In PRACTICE, the reverse is true."

In Google's case I would extend that to say "reliability and consistency is more important than capability." I don't care what Allo does if I can't trust Google to maintain it for more than few months before unceremoniously dumping it to the side of the road like so many of their other offerings.

At this point everyone I know just uses WhatsApp and is done with it.

edit: Geostyx made a great comment: "Whenever I hear 'Google' my mind goes straight to "thing that will be gone in 18 months""

I think part of it is marketing. In practice, Google Hangouts, Google Voice, and Google Chat are the same thing, but they don't always market it as such and it become confusing. I agree with your sentiment that they should focus on one product and do it well, and maybe release other ones to fit other niches if necessary. That way if the new niche product doesn't do well, it's not weird and the core product remains. This is what Facebook does and Messenger is their most popular product by far for phones.

I don't know if many non-tech people really think that Google is unreliable though. HN-ites think that because of the multitude of news we get about any product abandonment and the ones we used to use really sting even to this day (Reader...), but to the average person they don't really know or think that. Instead, they might get the new product if it seems cool, but generally they'll stick with their old messaging app because it works and that's what all their friends use, and so for them to switch requires not trust, because they don't distrust Google, but momentum, which can be difficult.

in retrospect, killing reader was probably the right decision. It seems like RSS was on the way out, anyway.

It may be, but Reader was still a very popular product, as seen by the big fallout over the shutdown.

And not a very complicated product at that. Maintaining it really could not have taken a lot of staff.

I'm pretty sure they wanted to push users over to Google Plus.

Where is the data that proves this? Leaving aside hipster trends (which I don't understand at all these days), what I see is that all the sites I visit, they have RSS/atom option; outside Bloomberg, which is a different story since they provides feeds via proprietary network.

What other tool gives me ability to follow dozens media sources, has offline capability and has dozens of implementations I can choose?

Leaving aside manager/sales talk, I believe they dumped Reader because they couldn't monetize it, just like Code Search.

Conversely, killing off Reader could have been the reason RSS fell away.

Fell away? RSS is an essential part of my life online. It didn't fell anywhere. It works just fine like it always did.

I don't like Facebook, Reader was essentially my social network. All of my friends used it. I think they killed Reader to push users to Google Plus. If they had just built Reader into Google Plus I probably would have used it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com