Hacker News Reader

Comment by bicknergseng | Hacker News Reader

So many "they killed reader how can I ever trust Google again" comments. As if everything ever has been permanent and Evernote will outlast humanity.

It's a minimal todo list for godsakes.

View on HN

so this might spell the end for 'tasks'? https://mail.google.com/tasks/canvas?pli=1

Google Notebook also was just a minimal notepad and yet it was killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Notebook

Evernote is completely dependent on it's product to survive, so they won't kill it unless they're going out of business. Same with One Note and Office, Microsoft makes billions out of Office every quarter.

Google Drive is pretty much subsidized from Adsense profits just like Google Notebook was.

They actually have a fairly large number of enterprise users. In any case, I think the parent's point was that even if Google did eventually shut it down, it's a todo list so it shouldn't be that hard to replace.

The product itself can easily be replaced, but the pain of researching the best alternative, installing new browser extensions, new mobile apps, and changing your workflow is a pain in itself.

If you're super averse to switching costs, I don't imagine you'd ever switch to Google Keep from whatever you're using now in the first place. So surely that's not a major concern for the set of people that are actually considering switching?

Google Notebook was filled with flaws. I used it quite a bit for a large number of subjects, but once the news came out it was getting the axe, I migrated over to another platform (there were plenty available and easily located) and that was that.

If people don't want to deal with that hassle then stay using what you have. I use Evernote right now, have it synced across multiple computers and two mobile devices. I may switch to Keep, I may not - but the whole Google Notebook being shut down isn't going to deter me from using a future Google Service.

If Google Keep ends up being a lackluster service then I should expect it to go away. Hopefully it won't, however from my experiences with Notebook, I'm extremely confident that even if it does, I won't lose any data.

Evernote is a very successful company with a successful business model and whilst I don't expect them to outlast humanity I do expect at least a few years.

Google has a well established record now for abandoning projects. Especially those that are free.

Let's get some perspective here: Google Reader ran for 8 years, far outlasting the majority of Web sites and Apps launched in that time. Evernote has only been around since 2008, where will it be in its 8th year of life? What happens if Apple builds a really great Evernote competitor into Siri?

With the attitude expressed in the comments here, one should never ever use any startup's new product, because 99% of them will fail, and they probably won't have anything like Google Takeout to help you migrate before they are shutdown.

There's a difference between "use" and "rely on," and I think one would have to be a fool to not factor in a startup's viability (as best as possible) when deciding whether or not to integrate its product into one's workflow. If you use dropbox, do you use it the same way now as you did when it was in beta? Or do you trust it more now? If you don't use dropbox, I'm sure you can think of similar examples that make the same point.

For various reasons (that have nothing to do with their viability as a company) I don't use Evernote and didn't use reader and I'm not going to use keep. But I think it's fair to consider google's track record with similar products over the last decade when debating whether or not to use keep.

> But I think it's fair to consider google's track record with similar products over the last decade when debating whether or not to use keep.

How is a standalone, non-monetized product like Reader similar to a feature of Google Drive (one of the core elements of the paid Google Apps.)

Reader is viewed as standalone now. IIRC it was introduced pretty soon after google accounts were and not long after gmail itself, and I remember thinking about it as part of a nebulous "google account package." Now obviously in hindsight I was wrong, but to act as though it is obvious now that "keep" is going to be around and updated for a long time is absurd. All of these products: reader, wave, buzz, notebooks, alerts, feedburner; looked like they'd be around and supported for a while when they were introduced.

I don's see how monetized vs. non-monetized is a relevant issue, unless I am completely off in how much of google's revenue comes from advertising. Google search is just as free as reader was and was just as non-monetized at first. I don't think that a significant percent of google's revenues come from Drive, but if you have contradictory data I'll concede the point that Drive is likely to be around in some form. That still doesn't prevent them from introducing and removing features of google drive; features like Keep.

Edit (forgot one thing): the other point illustrated by reader is that google is more focused than it was 8 years ago. I can't imagine a product like reader lasting 8 years if it were introduced today.

> Edit (forgot one thing): the other point illustrated by reader is that google is more focused than it was 8 years ago. I can't imagine a product like reader lasting 8 years if it were introduced today.

I can't see a product like Reader (in terms of its weak connection to any coherent long-term Google strategy, not its primary features) being released by Google today. Which is, incidentally, just another way of saying that cancellation of products that originated before Google's "more wood behind fewer arrows" focus isn't really a good yardstick for Google's commitment to products released under that new regime, for reasons which should be pretty obvious.

I'm not sure if I agree, but that's a fair point. But, again, it wasn't obvious 8 years ago that reader wasn't part of google's long-term strategy. They had gmail, blogger, sites, picasa, etc; all of which could be part of an "open-web" strategy that they've since moved away from.

> Google has a well established record now for abandoning projects.

Google has a well-established record for closing services that were introduced before they announced that they would be closing services that were languishing and working to stop introducing services that would languish that way.

I'm not sure how that warrants suspicion about closing directed at services introduced after that focus was announced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com