Sorry Google. You've lost my enthusiasm.
Why would I invest the time into learning how this works, trying to become part of the community etc when I can be pretty sure that they're just going to shut it down in a few years time?
Why would I invest the time into learning how this works, trying to become part of the community etc when I can be pretty sure that they're just going to shut it down in a few years time?
In the early days of Google+ trying to find anyone on the newly formed social network that wasn't part of the tech community was impossible.
If we become the early adopters then all this will be good for is advice for setting up a VPS and debugging javascript. I doubt they're trying to create the world's largest IT support system.
Pinterest took off without "us".
Not all new tech needs to go through "us" to be successful.
Don't forget that a Google has killed off a lot more than Reader. Some have been integrated into Google+, but not always and not always well.
When did it become wrong to test a product, and shut it down if it fails?
Why is it evil when Google does that, but okay when a startup does the exact same thing?
What you are basically saying is that if someone fails, we should avoid them in the future.
That's not very encouraging for anyone trying to build a business (or anything else).
I'm sorry, but this is an awful excuse. We're the type of people who master new technologies quickly. There's essentially $0 cost, and a ton of benefit, to new products becoming available. That's why they're exciting.
If the same startup starts another useful product, I'll check it out. I think people with your attitude are saying they'll cut off their nose to spite their face... but they actually won't. They'll use useful products, no matter the track record of the company, if the tradeoffs are close to right.
The difference between Google and the serious startups is that they have a record of launching products with no plan or intention to make money from them: they are loss leaders to bring more people into the Google walled garden. A lot of people didn't realise that in the past. People used these product knowing they weren't a money earner for Google, but people assumed Google was tying to be a good citizen and provide useful services for people. Using up the piles of money sloshing around at Google. People treat(ed) things like reader or gmail as basic infrastructure. Google enjoyed being treated like the benevolent dictator of the internet. We paid our 'taxes' in the form of ads and in return got lots of services and infrastructure for free. I heard countless people making the argument that Google's interests were intrinsically aligned with those of internet users: there was no way that giving more money and power to Google could ever go wrong.
It was totally wrong for people to think that way: corporations do not operate in the public interest. I think it's easy to understand the emotional backlash: people don't like to be made fools of. What they thought was benevolence turned out to be a PR exercise, or worse, a landgrab.
I can't rule that possibilty out, but I have also never seen evidence that suggested they created Reader with that intent.
Can't it be that Google tried to push adoption of a technology, believing that it would benefit them in the future?
Or that they believed that they would come up with a business model, given enough users.
You are right to be critical about startups without viable business - so am I - but don't forget: Google was that kind of startup for a few years
Start-ups should try different things and stop doing the stuff that doesn't work. So should Google. And Jobs saved Apple by killing off most of the products and projects when he returned from Next.
In the case of Google Reader, we saw a product lifespan from 2005 to 2013. That's eight years.
What lifespan can a user reasonably expect from any software product, and at what point is a company killing products so fast, that it's unlikely most customer will extract any value out of it. (considering the time needed to learn using the product and so on)
IF it starts (and that's a big if), it allows to get revenue (as a percentage of the fee for the helpout) from a platform that will not be shut down (google+) and so it will not likely be shut down as well.
Also, I assume that just about any new products they create will be tied into G+ if at all possible, so it remains to be seen if that will be a good indicator or not. If being tied to G+ means things don't close then that means they won't be shutting many things at all in the future. I'm sceptical.
Google+ is not going away (it's a big source for ranking and more) and this project leverages (I suppose) most of the existing infrastructure.
2. What did you lose when google closed reader? It gave you plenty of time and options to go to another service.
3. Products have a limited lifetime, deal with it. And not only on the internet.
4. If you think it's an interesting concept you should join it
Helpouts is build upon hangouts and hangouts is here to stay. Being helped with G+ is a good motivator for keeping the product (if it becomes popular).
If no one uses it, they will kill it for sure.
...just start my own consultancy and cut out the middleman completely?
Do you think Helpouts should exist, yes or no?
If Helpouts become very popular with for instance the tech crowd, and if Google kills Helpouts, you'll see other companies rush to fill the void.