Removing or fundamentally disabling a service that many people depend upon is qualitatively different from merely removing a feature.

Google dropping Reader has potential impact more like Yahoo!'s debacle with the Delicious relaunch. That change was so drastic that it was effectively a data-loss event for most users, obliterating years of carefully curated data. As Om points out, such actions are very destructive of brand trust. That's a risky position for any online services company to voluntarily put itself in.

FWIW, Evernote has removed significant features (esp. regarding Skitch) and gotten quite a bit of heat over it.

So what's the solution? To keep products and strategy static forever so that nobody gets perturbed?

It seems like Google has given ample time and accessibility for its users and developers to adapt.

I don't think there is a solution. It's a situation of inherent conflict which the involved parties just have to deal with. On one hand, no individual or organization can be expected to support a service that doesn't align with their goals and interests. On the other, it's unreasonable to expect people who valued the project to go quietly into the night. I view that as part of the shutdown cost for a popular service.

> It seems like Google has given ample time and accessibility for its users and developers to adapt.

I agree. But Reader has a significant online community around it. The friction and uncertainty created by Google's decision is bound to find an outlet.

Products are different than features.

And the point is, if Google is "going social" and streamlining everything to Google+, why did this product even get released? Why isn't it just some new social storage feature on Google+?

The reality is that Google is the new "Old Yahoo". New product come out with a big fanfare, some techies get excited for a month, and then 2 years later it gets unplugged for some "bold new direction."

The point is, every product costs a user something. If not money, then at least their time and energy learning to use the product. When a user comes to rely on that product and it gets deleted (especially when the company is making money like crazy), users lose faith in the company.

> The reality is that Google is the new "Old Yahoo".

Wow, this is the first time I've seen anyone put it that way, and it's completely true. I remember trying to rally around Yahoo Briefcase. Then Yahoo Photos. Then Yahoo 360. Or how about Microsoft?

But I guess it just comes back to companies being growth-oriented. If a service is launched, is not the company's core business, then stops growing, it's on the chopping block immediately. So ultimately it's much, much better as a user to go with a company that's dedicated to that task and lives and dies by it.

Viva Dropbox, Box, Evernote, etc..

We are talking about removing products that are widely used. Reader was not just a feature but a full product that Google killed.

A company that makes a product that users care substantially about? Yeah, what a shit use of effort that would be.

I don't know any company who would remove features that millions of people use every single day.

Yes, you only know a company that would remove a feature hundreds of millions of people use every day, from a product they've paid for to boot (see: Apple Maps).

Microsoft removed wordcount from Word way back when. Journalists bitched because they used it every day and it got put back.