Every time Google pull the plug on one of their products, a lot of Google users get very uncertain about the soundness of their commitment to Google. Google's enemies are quick to take advantage of that uncertainty and, together, frustrated fans and eager enemies develop a strange vision of a company who will pull the plug on even the most healthy and beloved products if it will even remotely benefit its twisted schemes.
Interestingly, this view of Google is a reaction to an equally unrealistic view of Google as a through and through altruistic organisation which basically exists to give consumers for free what other companies want to charge them for.
Google is indeed a very unusual company - not least because it does in fact provide tons of value for free. But it is still a company and what goes on at Google is almost certainly much less dramatic than the worn out caricature I mentioned above. Like any other clever company in a very competitive field of business they have to focus a lot on return of investment - and several Google products which were conceived in a different, more playful era quite simply never evolved into healthy investments. Some of them have gathered large followings of dedicated users such as Google Wave, Google Notebook, Google Buzz and Google Reader - but, even so, they were basically all dead on delivery from a business point of view.
Google is not pulling the plug on Reader because they don't believe in RSS - but because they can't make money on RSS. Google Reader is not just a free Google product among other Google products. It is a product which doesn't have a chance of making Google any money - just like Google Notebook, Google Wave, Google Buzz and Google Knol which all had to go.
Furthermore, Google desperately wants to strengthen their relationship with publishers - not weaken ;it. Publishers hate RSS and see it as a perfect example of how they are being robbed of content.
In my opinion, that's all there is to say about the death of Google Reader. Still, that doesn't mean that it isn't interesting to consider Google's position on various markets when they close one or several products. When Google give up a product in any given field, they risk that competing products grow so good that they threaten other Google products. Google gave up Google Notebook and seemed content to hand over the market to Evernote. But is it unthinkable that Evernote turns into a full blown cloud based productivity suite in direct competition to Google Drive? And now Google give up Google Reader and leave the market to patient and persistent services like Feedly - who were clearly waiting for this to happen. Who knows how many Google users become so enamored with Feedly that they decide to give up Google Currents?
However, those worries are simply worries about the force of competition. Not worries about Google's motives.
Interestingly, this view of Google is a reaction to an equally unrealistic view of Google as a through and through altruistic organisation which basically exists to give consumers for free what other companies want to charge them for.
Google is indeed a very unusual company - not least because it does in fact provide tons of value for free. But it is still a company and what goes on at Google is almost certainly much less dramatic than the worn out caricature I mentioned above. Like any other clever company in a very competitive field of business they have to focus a lot on return of investment - and several Google products which were conceived in a different, more playful era quite simply never evolved into healthy investments. Some of them have gathered large followings of dedicated users such as Google Wave, Google Notebook, Google Buzz and Google Reader - but, even so, they were basically all dead on delivery from a business point of view.
Google is not pulling the plug on Reader because they don't believe in RSS - but because they can't make money on RSS. Google Reader is not just a free Google product among other Google products. It is a product which doesn't have a chance of making Google any money - just like Google Notebook, Google Wave, Google Buzz and Google Knol which all had to go.
Furthermore, Google desperately wants to strengthen their relationship with publishers - not weaken ;it. Publishers hate RSS and see it as a perfect example of how they are being robbed of content.
In my opinion, that's all there is to say about the death of Google Reader. Still, that doesn't mean that it isn't interesting to consider Google's position on various markets when they close one or several products. When Google give up a product in any given field, they risk that competing products grow so good that they threaten other Google products. Google gave up Google Notebook and seemed content to hand over the market to Evernote. But is it unthinkable that Evernote turns into a full blown cloud based productivity suite in direct competition to Google Drive? And now Google give up Google Reader and leave the market to patient and persistent services like Feedly - who were clearly waiting for this to happen. Who knows how many Google users become so enamored with Feedly that they decide to give up Google Currents?
However, those worries are simply worries about the force of competition. Not worries about Google's motives.
Comments
Post a Comment