Our Regressive Web

Re:Our Regressive Web by jsankey on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @05:45PM (#5482338)

Were they really not worth doing? Or just not worth Google doing? The latter has a much higher bar given the rate at which other parts of Google print money.

I could certainly see a minority of Reader customers paying enough for the service to make a small team very comfortable. It would have been nice for Google to spin it out for this reason, though I suspect there were significant technical barriers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Regressive Web by ebertx on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @06:42PM (#5482707)

I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but using Google Reader seems to cut down on the number of ads a user sees. And seeing as Google is at its heart an advertising company, why would they put effort into maintaining a tool that reduces the number of delivered ads?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Regressive Web by ryanholiday on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @07:40PM (#5482985)

Ding ding!

Of course, that doesn't mean this isn't unfortunate, bad for us and bad for the web in the long term.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Regressive Web by polemic on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @06:38PM (#5482676)

I think you're right, but I think it also shows that the service will always be niche. That's fine, but it's not "regression".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our Regressive Web by jzawodn on Tuesday April 02, 2013 @06:25PM (#5482596)

You've hit the nail squarely on the head...

[ Parent | on HN ]