[webwanderings]

Be humble grandpa! There were people who used to use Google Reader without any of its social network shenanigans. And of course, there were people who have been using RSS readers before Google Reader was even born. But, no RSS reader has ever reached the ceiling of common usage, which is not a bad deal.

[drtz]

> There were people who used to use Google Reader without any of its social network shenanigans.

I was even blissfully ignorant to the existence of these social features in Google Reader until this moment.

[kcplate]

Same. I am glad of that too. I loved it and probably wouldn’t have if the social aspect was in your face.

[ghaff]

In my circles, which admittedly may not be representative, RSS is/was a tool for people whose job it was in part to proactively ferret out a wide range of information and insights from obscure corners of the internet--so journalists, analysts, and the like. Which just doesn't describe a mainstream audience.

While it's satisfying to blame Google, the killing of Reader always seemed like a natural effect of RSS not being popular than its cause. It's not like there aren't other RSS alternatives. And, of course, social media does a pretty good job--for all its faults--of surfacing those various tidbits with or without RSS.

[skybrian]

It was successful enough that a much smaller business than Google would have tried to keep it going, probably as a subscription service. But for Google it was a rounding error, and the code base needed a rewrite.

It seems hard to argue that it would have become more successful, given that its successors are pretty good but they’re small businesses.

[ghaff]

Right. And the problem with rounding error businesses at large companies is that:

1. They're a distraction and

2. It's probably very career limiting to work on them.

Someone at IBM told me years ago that if something wasn't going to be a billion dollar business they weren't interested. And Google walked away years ago from organizing the world's knowledge if advertising wasn't attached.

[fanso99]

There is an argument to be made that these… micro services were a part of a bigger offering from Google. Maybe by itself Reader wasn’t a billion dollar business, but together with other niche features Reader attracted an influential and wealthy audience.

[lolinder]

I don't think OP was referring to any social features beyond what RSS specified:

> In retrospect, it was the least toxic social network. You added your friends, their recommendations bubbled up in the interface, so you saw cool new stuff.

This is just "subscribe to people's blogs". That's still the ideal social media for me.

[ryanf]

No, Google Reader had a social layer where you could add friends, see items that they recommended, and comment on them. It was really great, but it was ruined by the migration to Google+ before Reader was actually killed.

[smeej]

Was this the same as Google Buzz?

My friends and I loved Buzz and lamented its loss. We tried Google+, but it couldn't even really do what Buzz could do, and it certainly didn't have any other killer features, so it didn't take.