[henrikschroder]

I don't think people who use RSS realize what a small minority they are. I don't use RSS or Google Reader, I've never even seen it, but this week my Facebook has been filled by a tiny slice of my friends who are incredibly upset.

The vast majority are just shrugging and not caring one bit.

Only Google has the actual numbers on how many people are using their Reader, and they simply did the math. End of story. It's not going to affect Google one bit that they cancelled a tiny non-profitable product.

[fauigerzigerk]

"they simply did the math"

Math is useless without a good model. The article challenges their model and rightly so.

[coldtea]

>I don't think people who use RSS realize what a small minority they are.

Maybe you don't realise how many they are?

I mean, your very next line admits total ignorance:

>I don't use RSS or Google Reader, I've never even seen it

Thing is, people who have successful technical blogs know that lots of people come from Google Reader.

So even if it's a minority, it's a pretty important minority in the business.

[sergiosgc]

> I don't think people who use RSS realize what a small minority they are.

They do: Contributors (curators) are, grossly, 9% of total users (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%2...)

[Pro_bity]

Google reader is a pretty important tool for competitive intel. The only really tuneable alternatives are expensive services that don't do the job half as well.

[mcherm]

The point here is that your facebook has been filled. In other words, there may only be a few upset people, but they're people that other folks (like you) listen to.

[henrikschroder]

In this case it doesn't matter, because the vast majority of my friends don't know what RSS is, don't care, don't use it, and don't care about Google Reader.

The few that cared posted their angry rants, and noone cared. Noone commented. It's a complete non-issue.

And even if you accept the premise of the article, that the ones who care about Google Reader are influencers, what exactly does that mean in practice? Google doesn't have very many services that regular people use. There's search, and you'll never get people to stop using that. There's gmail, and you'll never get people to stop using that. There's Google+, and you'll never get people to use that, because they've got Facebook, and it's only nerds on G+ anyway.

I get the abstract point of the article, that if you upset influential people, they'll badmouth your product, and the Microsoft Word example made a lot of sense, because it stopped people from buying the latest version of it and sticking with what they had.

But that scenario doesn't apply here. Those of you who are upset about this, exactly which Google services will you stop promoting to your friends, and which alternatives will you suggest?

[incongruity]

The bigger issue isn't whether they influence the masses, it's whether they influence the decision makers who do matter to Google's revenue streams – and that's an open question, IMHO.

The idea that you can't rely on Google to keep services around is a bit of a chilling one for many and too much of that vibe may well mean that established companies and smart startups are more careful about what services they depend on (and who they get them from).

But we're not at that point yet... and Google is hardly alone in the general rug-pulling-out-from-under-you trend these days.

[mkr-hn]

I got a friend to give RSS another shot with this post: http://mkronline.com/2013/03/15/why-you-should-want-to-use-r...

The main issue for RSS seems to be that no one bothered to explain it in direct terms to all the tens of millions of people who rushed into the web starting around 2007.

[ersii]

Uhm, I've always thought I've been in a pretty small minority - but at least here in Sweden, RSS reading is pretty normal.

Though, the majority of people here aren't using Google Reader - so I guess I'm a minority there - but they're using "Bloglovin".

They're pretty large it seems.

[baby]

I don't know anyone in France who use Google reader or others. Maybe power users but even them... it's not that useful.

[camus]

i do , and all the french journalists i know.

[baby]

maybe in some professions, then it's a professional tool and not a "for everyone's" usage. There are several options out there aside from Google Reader, especially if you're willing to pay.

[pseut]

Yeah, that's the point of TFA. It's a professional tool for journalists and bloggers, or, even more bluntly, it's a professional tool for people with a platform to share their opinions.

[dllthomas]

As a regular user of reader, I'm more or less shrugging. The features I use aren't anything I can't put together for myself pretty simply out of available tools; having reader there just prevented me from bothering.

I realize I won't be getting things like the recommendations, but I've got plenty of feeds going presently. There may well be other features others love that I've been missing out on, but obviously I won't be missing them :-P

[gbog]

Facebook users are also a small minority, if you want to go there.

The problem is that some minorities count more than others, because they are influential (vocal, if you prefer).

[SoftwareMaven]

They aren't just vocal; more importantly, people listen to them. They are the people that get products across chasms, so when Google encourages them to look elsewhere, they are encouraging many more people to look elsewhere, too.

The big question, which TFA states but provides no evidence for, is whether pushing these influencers away from Reader also pushes them away from other services, too.

My personal opinion is, by itself, no; but if you make Reader the frosting on a cake of discontinued products, it just might. Now, the general unease of "Will this thing I care about get terminated next spring?" becomes a much stronger fear, because it is tied to the personal emotions of Reader being killed.