[cromwellian]

Reader derangement syndrome strikes again. Summarizing the thread, if you're are an early adopter of anything, you run the risk it won't be here in a year. That's what we tolerate in the tech arena, start ups throwing lots of good and dumb ideas at the wall to see what sticks, evolution in action. How many people who built their business on Facebook's F8 platform went belly up due to changes?

Google is a company that is constantly experimenting with new products and services. Yes, some of them will fail. That's the cost of innovation. It's really sad we've forgotten that. Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. If you're risk averse, leave the opportunity to others to jump in and place their bets if Helpouts is a winning platform for them.

[swombat]

The problem is not a history of killing failed product, it's a history of killing products that everyone is actually using, without giving it as much of a chance as a company of Google's resources might be expected to, for political reasons rather than practical reasons.

As a couple of good examples: Google Wave was created to give the Rasmussen brothers (creators of Google Maps) something high-profile to do. Then it was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year.

Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it.

In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project.

Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions.

Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.

[VikingCoder]

"history of killing products that everyone is actually using"

That's true for amazingly small values of "everyone." It may include you, several people you know, and other people in your line of work, but that's not remotely the same thing.

[aeturnum]

Hyperbole aside, the point is that it's possible for Google services to be successful but not successful "enough". They're willing to shut down services that have devoted followings. So , whenever you consider investing in a small service from Google, you should understand that could accomplish all its goals and still be shut down.

[VikingCoder]

Hyperbole aside, the point is that it's possible for any company's services to be successful but not successful "enough". All companies are willing to shut down services that have devoted followings. So , whenever you consider investing in a small service from any company, you should understand that could accomplish all its goals and still be shut down.

[SimpleXYZ]

I used igoogle to load a gmail iframe on my (insanely awesome) custom start page. It really sucks they shut that down.

I was also using the Google Toolbar (do not consume) spelling auto-correct "API". I was doing some really neat stuff with that technology and they shut that down too. Sure, I can't really complain about that one, but the end result is the same...

If you adopt Google technology, prepare for labor intensive migrations, alternative scrambling, and disappointments.

[spankalee]

FTFY

If you adopt most any new technology, prepare for labor intensive migrations, alternative scrambling, and disappointments.

The world moves fast, products shut down all the time, but Google is high profile and gets lots of complaints... that's fine, I'm OK with them being held to a higher standard, it'll be good for them in the long run. But, I recently hit a problem because Twitter shut down it's 1.0 API. I'm not running around saying don't use Twitter on every article about them.

[Veus]

Also outside of HN/geek how many people REALLY used Reader? I bet you its less than 0.1% of the overall Google users. I would have done exactly the same in Google's position.

If a feature had been built that only 0.1% of users are using yet is taking up time to run, why keep it?

[ChikkaChiChi]

Several million people who use Android had downloaded Google Reader.

[ollyculverhouse]

So 900 million Android devices back in July[1] and even if 5 million devices had Android that is a total of 0.55% of all Android users. Still worth it?

[1] http://www.androidcentral.com/larry-page-15-million-android-...

[k-mcgrady]

>> "Several million people who use Android had downloaded Google Reader."

That says nothing about usage though. I downloaded a lot of Google apps when I first got an Android device. Most of them I opened once and never again. I think this experience is common with apps.

[unclebucknasty]

Had an initial reaction upon seeing this post and came here to "share" only to find that so many have the same reaction. It just smells like a product that Google will be killing at some point in the not-too-distant future.

I get the whole idea behind the current environment to just throw stuff against the wall, see what sticks, then iterate.

That's great for start-ups, but, I would suggest that it is actually a problem when a well-established company does this repeatedly. In addition to Google just appearing flaky (which in itself is not good), customers do lose faith in the company's commitment to its customers/users and to their products in general.

[mistermann]

Did anyone continue to run with the Google Wave idea? I'd be interested in using a tool like that, it showed a lot of promise.

[_ea1k]

Apache Wave (I believe the intial code was contributed by Google): http://incubator.apache.org/wave/source-code.html

I don't think it has gained much traction, though.

[myko]

Yes, Apache:

http://incubator.apache.org/wave/

[cma]

Wave was really laggy and required a special chrome frame plugin to run in IE. It was laggy even in chrome.

[grey-area]

Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward.

It's certainly an acceptable risk for Google and other companies like FB - the short-term cost of innovation for Google is pretty close to zero. The long-term cost of reputation is perhaps something they're only now starting to realise.

Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me.

I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.

[icebraining]

Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed

Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.

[grey-area]

Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.

The issue is how easily these services can be closed, not how long they last, in fact if they last longer it's worse for the users involved if they are suddenly shut down. Now free services for life doesn't seem like such a good deal, because the terms are that they owe you nothing and life may equal 2 months, 1 year or 10, it's impossible to know.

I didn't use Reader or participate in the Reader drama and feel it's a bit over-egged, but there is certainly a reputational cost to closing mainstream services or modifying them without consulting those who use them as Apple, FB, MS, Google, Twitter et al do regularly. This doesn't really apply if you have 10 users, but if you have 10 million and an ecosystem it can become important.

Building on top of these platforms like FB or G+ is in my opinion very risk for other businesses, so depending on something like helpouts is a huge risk for the people who might use it to actually sell/provide services and build a reputation, but very little short-term risk for Google.

[vvvVVVvvv]

>Building on top of these platforms [...]

Relying on an other business (platform, as a customer, [...]) for more than 25% (33, 50 your call)of your revenue is risky no matter the industry.

Relying a 100% is stupid.

[grey-area]

Relying... 100% is stupid.

And yet this is what FaceBook, Twitter, Google, Apple and many other web and OS corporations are encouraging people to do - build on top of their platform (be that FB apps, Twitter API, iOS/Android apps or web apps relying on a single-signon). They all want to own the platform which everyone builds and consumes on, and turn everyone else into sharecroppers.

With this particular service, it might be really great for connecting people to provide each other services, but as it also relies on Google+ (which, for example, people have been arbitrarily shut out of), and is provided by Google of Reader infame, is it worth an investment of time or resources? Perhaps as an adjunct to other services, but I'd be wary of depending on it in any meaningful way, as you say.

That may sound like common sense, but see the examples given above of platforms which try to push both consumers and developers into reliance on one tech company for essential parts of their online identity (professional and personal).

[Flenser]

I'm glad I was able to use it for those 8 years. Not bad for a free service.

[weland]

> Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me.

I think an important bottom-line to this is that using an application you do not own, on a system you do not own, is not like running a program, it's like having a service done for you. Despite the web application misnomer, Google Reader was a service more than it was an application.

So all the other rules that apply to services apply here as well. The commercial entity behind it can simply decide to end it -- just like a restaurant can decide to stop doing deliveries for whatever reason, including the manager simply not wanting to do it anymore.

This isn't a disaster to anyone. It can be quickly turned into a disaster if you start basing your whole business model on it. Like when you decide to start a food delivery business that receives orders for restaurants that don't do home deliveries, but you only take orders for one restaurant and as soon as that closes, you're out.

[grey-area]

The problem often comes with data. If the service collects user data (and most services do), it is often a real problem when it shuts down. Suddenly none of the links work, the data is gone, and any reputation or network built up is also hard to retrieve.

If the service was offering a discrete operation on local files (by analogy with a desktop app or a restaurant), then it wouldn't be a great problem if it shuts down, you just find another.

However, going back to this service - someone using this help service to help others might build up a stellar reputation over 10 years, only to have the plug pulled on all their posts, and all the content disappearing or at best losing all its links in when Google decides to move on to Google++ and retires it.

[derefr]

> It's really sad we've forgotten that.

I don't think anyone's forgotten; we forgive small companies for trying-and-failing to do something cool all the time. For some reason, though, we (as an angry mob) seem to be incapable of allowing big companies to try-and-fail at exactly the same sorts of things.

(Personally, I think it might have something to do with how ancestral-environment humans saw leaders making promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)

[k__]

I think it's because we expect start-ups to fail, most of them do.

Big companies fail, too, but less often, because they once were part of the few start-ups who didn't fail.

If you want high-end and are happy to live with the risk, you go to a start-up.

If you want safety and are happy to live with a more conservative approach, you go to a big company.

If the big one fails, you feel robbed of your safety.

[derefr]

But why can't people differentiate between "big company serving their regular audience" and "big company trying something new"? The something-new ventures, no matter how hard they fail, never affect the ability of the company to deliver on their something-safe ventures. For example, no matter how much of a flop a new version of Ubuntu is, it won't stop them from supporting the LTS versions.

[unclebucknasty]

Part of the problem is also in the way that Google kills things. They generally don't attempt to sell it, open it up, or spin it off, etc. You just wake up one day and it's dead (or announced as soon-to-be so).

Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months.

There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google.

It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.

[qq66]

Having a product disappear while you're using it is more of a risk when you invest a lot of your time into it. If Gmail disappeared with a month's notice, a lot of people would be forced to spend hours or days migrating their data and settings. If Google Search disappeared overnight, people could just use Bing.

This seems fairly transactional and thus fairly low-risk, although on the help provider side there's probably a reputation system which will become meaningless when the product is shut down.