This analogy would only work if Apple gave away the Mac Pro for free, everyone switched to it because it was free, and then Apple announced they needed all the Mac Pros back because they were done providing free Mac Pros.

But it's not. If you have a Mac Pro now, you can continue to use it as long as you want. Google Reader disappears in July.

My analogy was comparing the products themselves, not the surrounding techniques used by the companies that make them. My point is that Reader and Mac Pro are at their core very similar products: immensely useful for a small (nerdy) market niche, not capable of ever providing enough profits to warrant their upkeep in a corporation the size of Apple or Google.

Whether you believe Google "won" by offering it for free or not is inconsequential in my mind. My point is simply that there existed no universe in which a responsible Google would continue supporting it, because the product simply doesn't make sense to them in the same way the Mac Pro really just doesn't make sense to Apple.

But Marco's point was that Reader dominated its niche in such a way that few alternatives exist. This is obviously not true of the Mac Pro. Google didn't simply kill off an unsuccessful product. They killed off an unsuccessful product that had a near-monopoly.

Yes, and my point is twofold:

1. It dominated its niche because it was a legitimately good product, not just because it was free. There have been many free alternatives for a long time, even before Reader. For example if every Mac user actually used the built in RSS readers that ship with OS X they would have eclipsed the Reader userbase.

2. The fact that it is a small niche (and more importantly isn't really growing) probably better explains the "lack" of alternatives.

The fact of the matter is that when Apple finally kills off the Mac Pro there actually won't be (lega) alternatives, unlike the current situation with RSS where there are plenty of alternatives (its just that Google's was way better). This is my whole point: Google won on quality, decided it wasn't worth it for them, and then exited. Had they priced it from the beginning (either through ads or freemium or whatever), they would have still won in my opinion, and then still killed it. Reader winning and going away has nothing to do with free in my mind: there is just no universe where Google would continue supporting an RSS product because RSS is not a big enough market.

I guess my point is that Google would have "killed the space" no matter what, not because they made it free.

Feedly got 500k users just a few days after Google announced Reader was going to be shutdown. That's 500k people who have a pulse on this type of thing. The actual RSS user total must be much higher, I guess we'll see how much higher when Reader actually shuts down. But whatever the number is, it's pretty clear that there are enough RSS users that a real business can be built on top of it, and indeed there were business built on top of it before Reader and I'm betting there will be real businesses built on top of it after Reader, but I find it really hard to look at what we know and not conclude that Reader had a profound impact in this space.

> The fact of the matter is that when Apple finally kills off the Mac Pro there actually won't be (lega) alternatives,

I don't know what you are talking about, the Mac Pro is a tower computer, there are many alternatives today and there will be many alternatives when the Mac Pro goes away, Apple doesn't dominate the tower computer market.

I don't think we disagree here. I explained that a "big market" is a relative term. To Google, the market is not large enough to justify keeping this thing around, especially in this context of "social networks" that people keep bringing up. The bigger the company, the harder it is to be considered "successful". This in no way means that it isn't a viable business for a smaller company. In fact, that's basically exactly what I said in my last sentence:

> Its good for Google to realize that this isn't worth their time so they can focus their resources on things only they can do (like cars that drive themselves and whatnot) and leave these tasks for the rest of us where these user numbers and profits are meaningful.

Google forgot who the "small" number of users were. Reader is/was a power tool for many users. I was one that wouldn't mind paying some money for the time that Reader saved me. But now I have to consider that Google can kill any of the tools that I use for any reason. There are alternate choices in all Google "strengths". And many of us will switch to them.

Apple dominates the "Tower Computer that legally runs OS X" market.

That's not a market anymore than "RSS software that runs Google Reader" is a market.

Sure it is. If I want a desktop that runs OS X, what do I do? I buy one. Sure, it's a monopoly, but it's a product with a unique characteristic that people are willing to pay money for. Unfortunately, if Apple decides to drop the Mac Pro, it'll be a market that still exists but no one will be able to legally enter.

> few alternatives exist.

this is ridiculous the last few days on HN were filled with alternatives. Google allows you to export your feeds so nothing was lost.

But the Mac Pros people are using now don't cease to exist if/when Apple officially cans them. That makes them very disimilar products. You would have been better off comparing to Apple iWeb Hosting.

> My point is simply that there existed no universe in which a responsible Google would continue supporting it

What about the universe where someone decides that keeping the goodwill of the (yes small, but as we've seen in the past week very vocal) Reader userbase is worth the miniscule cost of keeping it alive in maintenance mode?

> Reader userbase is worth the miniscule cost of keeping it alive in maintenance mode

What makes you think it is a minuscule cost? Crawling the millions of feeds and updating the XML parsers as feed formats change is going to cost very real dollars.

A better solution would have been for Google to auction off the service. This would have allowed smaller companies to run it and impose a small fee. While it might not have made sense financially for Google to do this, it might make sense for a small company with a small staff focusing just on this product to make a go of it.

I think much of the confused back-and-forth in this thread seems to stem from the fact that "good business decision" and "bad outcome for users" are not mutually exclusive. I don't think Marco doubts that Google had valid reasons for shuttering Reader. His piece is simply a plea to avoid becoming dependent on "proprietary monocultures" so that when these shutdowns occur, the negative impact on the user-base is minimized.

(Though I'm not sure that he's entirely against regulation, as some in this thread have suggested.)

The interesting thing to me is that Google is throwing away a human-powered recommendation engine; Google Reader was people putting together their own equivalent of something like dmoz.org, volunteering analytics on prioritization.

Perhaps the organizing being done was too tech-focused to be of enough value in any other category, or Google is confident enough in algorithms to drop the parallel system. Or, as was stated, their wasn't enough participation at all.

I think that analogy is a bit of a stretch. The Mac Pro is a product that you purchase. Google Reader was a free service that was dependent on someone else.

If Apple decides to kill the Mac Pro line, the Mac Pros that have been sold don't suddenly cease to function. But on July 1, Reader will no longer work neither on the website nor on any of the apps using the API.

I think you can compare the Mac Pro to Sparrow (which Marco mentioned in a footnote). It's not even enough for a product to be profitable. If a product's development team can be redeployed to some even more profitable (or "strategic") use, you may be saying goodbye to a perfectly good product.

I guess a big thing that I have to wonder here is how many folks stopped using Reader (or became less engaged) after they swapped many of the built in sharing features out for G+ integration...

Many of the people in my social circle that were big Google Reader users stopped using it because it was much more difficult to share articles that we'd browse while at work.

You can still buy a Mac Pro. Google could have had Reader live on because they are, you know, "open". Except they want everyone to use Google+.

What does this have to do with anything? Google is a business like any other. Google is not dropping Reader because they are secretly closed and nefarious, they are dropping it because no one uses it (again, relatively speaking). If people actually used RSS then they'd feel compelled to keep it, whether priced or not, because it would be make business sense to keep it around. I guarantee you that if RSS had Facebook's user count, they'd be banging that RSS drum like crazy.

But it doesn't, and Google is not a charity. Whether you believe them to be "open" or not (meaningless statement), being "open" certainly does not commit you to supporting arbitrary protocols indefinitely for the good of the world, especially ones that most people don't use. RSS had its shot, it just can't compete in today's web.

And we'll see for just how long you can still buy the Mac Pro.

You can stop your argument right at the start. Google Reader has more activity than Google Plus: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/google-reader-still-sends-...

Every conclusion derived from here is then flawed.

Where is google+ mentioned in my argument? Its not. However, for sake of argument, if g+ proves to not get enough users eventually either, I'm sure they'll shut it down too and try something new. Just like they did with wave.

It isn't in your argument, but is the elephant in the room. If low usage was really the cause for GReader sunset, G+ should have been chopped too. It wasn't, hence it isn't.

I'd be curious to see meaningful engagement numbers of Reader and G+.

Anecdotally, most folks I know use Reader every day at both home and office, but "use" G+ only to the extent that it's plugged into other Google services.

Anecdote: I post links to my blog entries to G+ in case Google gives it undue weight in search ranking. A few people click +1, and it's in the search results of the few thousand people who have my G+ account in a circle.

But that's it. Anyone I find interesting enough to follow ends up in Feedly.

Look I like Google and I understand they have to run a business but I have a hard time believing that shuttering Reader has nothing to do with driving people to G+.

I guess you are not understanding my position. I neither like nor don't like Google, and I'm not "defending" their position from an altruistic standpoint. Maybe their plan is to help G+ through shutting down Reader, I don't know. My point is that if they did that, it wouldn't be a testament for or against their openness, because Reader merited being shut down either way, for the simple fact that it is a failed technology.

If you strongly want "open" to beat "closed social", then maybe RSS dying might be a step in a positive direction, since its had its shot, and proved to just not be useful for people. Now, I personally feel RSS neither hurts nor helps "closed social" in any way, so I think its inconsequential.

Well you may have a point about RSS being a failed technology, at least for the masses, who seem to prefer bells and whistles.

I am not following the logic you believe Google would use to think shuttering Reader would push people to Google+. How does pissing off people who use Reader push them to use another service by the company that just pissed them off? Especially when Google+ doesn't really do what the Reader did?

Nothing into that link says anything about shutting down Reader to drive people to Google+.

It does have a former employee saying Google+ is more of a focus for Google than Reader, but that isn't remotely the same and everyone knew that for quite a while.

From the article:

After all, before Google Reader’s sharing features were converted to corresponding Google+ ones, users of the soon-to-be-killed service used to share like crazy. Shih postulates, with plenty of logic, that this activity dropped as Google pushed Reader users to sharing on Google+ instead.

That is in reference to the changing from internal sharing to Google+ sharing in October 2011, not shutting down Google Reader. I understand that Google prefers their users to use Google+ over Reader, but I still don't see how shutting down Reader = more Google+ users, even from Google's perspective. If anything, they are removing a service that could have driven Google+ sharing.

> You can still buy a Mac Pro.

Even more importantly, if you already purchased a Mac Pro, you can still use it. Indefinitely, until it breaks beyond repair.

Not exactly. Apple stops shipping OSX updates for older Mac Pros, so eventually, you lose software support. I have a Mac Pro that no longer works with Mountain Lion. Is it missing some kind of hardware needed to run Mountain Lion? No. Is there any reason it shouldn't be able to run it? No.

As a result, I could not get upgrades for some software that required Mountain Lion to use. That, combined with the lack of upgrades, forced me to replace my Mac Pro with a custom built Linux box. It now sits idle in the corner.

Okay, so it's not black and white. Sure, my android phone from 3 years ago can't run most newer apps. But it can still run the things I had on the phone at the time. I guess what I was getting at was that Apple (or Google) doesn't come and take the device away from you once the product line has been EOL'd.

I don't see how "open" = maintaining a service that was never open source.

It's "open" in the sense of it was built on open protocols, rather than proprietary ones. Replacing those open protocols with proprietary ones makes you less open.

Google moving from Reader (RSS/Atom) to Current (unspecified protocols) is less open.

Google moving Calendar from CalDAV to their proprietary Calendar API is less open.

Google potentially moving Talk from XMPP to an unspecified proprietary protocol is less open.

Etc.

I think he means Google could've have open sourced Reader if they wanted to.

I presume the underpinnings of Reader (search, caching, etc.) are so tied to Google tech that open sourcing it would either be impossible or lead to a neutered version that was useless.

The Mac Pro is no longer sold in Europe.