Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by scott_s on Friday March 15, 2013 @01:28PM (#5381768)

I thought it was straight-forward: he wants to understand what it was about Reader that users liked, so he can work on incorporating them into Google+. Since he does not have the power to save Reader, he's telling people this is not the venue to complain about its shutdown.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by roc on Friday March 15, 2013 @01:55PM (#5381957)

That's funny, I assumed it was a PR move to make Google appear responsive when they inevitably add an RSS-ish feature to syndicate news subscriptions into google+ feeds, as opposed to appearing like a malevolent plan to kill a beloved service to push more people into google+.

Hence it's counter-productive to mention the shutdown in negative terms, as that associates the two efforts in a way that underscores the latter interpretation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by scott_s on Friday March 15, 2013 @02:11PM (#5382055)

If it came from an executive or a press release, perhaps I would have assumed that. But it came from an engineer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by roc on Friday March 15, 2013 @02:20PM (#5382113)

"an engineer", Chief Architect, same difference, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by scott_s on Friday March 15, 2013 @02:41PM (#5382215)

Where I work, Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products. That happens higher than them. Their responsibility is engineering the architecture of their product. So, yes, I think it's accurate to refer to a Chief Architect as "an engineer."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by roc on Friday March 15, 2013 @03:37PM (#5382509)

> "Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products."

No, but if you were trying to convince people you weren't forcing them into Google+, but Google+ was presenting alternatives out of their sincere love for the people, you wouldn't use the person who made the decision now would you?

And who better to stand up and ask "how can we help" than one of the people who will later take to the Google Blog to say "look what we added to Google+ because you asked for it?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by scott_s on Friday March 15, 2013 @04:19PM (#5382754)

An event's possibility is not evidence for its occurrence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by saraid216 on Friday March 15, 2013 @03:13PM (#5382365)

The odd thing to me is that he phrased it as "many Google products", which sounds as if he's thinking about leaving the Google+ product.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Goog... by Smudge on Friday March 15, 2013 @01:51PM (#5381921)

I see both points here. My response would be similar to nicksergeant's. The parts of Google Reader I found useful were the parts where you could read RSS feeds. Will RSS be incorporated into Google+ somehow? I don't really understand what else he's getting at.

[ Parent | on HN ]