[deadcyclo]

Try looking at it again:

It's posted in "Friends of the Unofficial Google Reader API"

and he says: "I realize that we're using an unofficial API, so we have no right to complain about any changes to it (instead we should be thankful to have been able to use it for so long). But at the same time, the Reader team is well aware that developers such as myself are using their API in our software, and some of us rely on this software to generate an income."

[mwhite]

Google Reader being retired entails the API being discontinued. Certainly he'd care if, instead, just the API was discontinued. But if all he was talking about was the API being discontinued, then he wouldn't have used the unambiguous words "discontinue/retire Reader" four times, including in the title.

I guess I just have a slightly different idea of the meaning of 'misleading' and 'asking'.

[deadcyclo]

Try attacking it from a different angle: The first thing he does is post a link to a google blog post that clearly states that they are releasing a new and changed version of google reader, and later on talks about changes to the API can ruin peoples businesses.

Now, if he really was talking about google reader being retired, and not just the API, that would mean that he in no way, shape or form could have read the blog post he himself initially posted a link to.

My best guess is that it simply is a poor choice of words, and that he figured since he was posting on the webpage of the API, he simply skipped the word API.

[hosh]

There's been an announcement from Google that they are finally implementing one the most-asked for features for Google Reader: sharing items from Readers to your G+ circles. Once implemented, sharing news items from Reader to other Reader users no longer makes sense.

Google ditching Reader API makes more sense as a possibility than Google ditching Reader all-together.