Author: Michael Mahemoff, Guest Contributor

  • Google loved Orkut more than Reader and other myths debunked

    When Google announced its shutdown of Reader two weeks ago, it led to an outpouring of emotion few could have predicted. Amid the anguish were some healthy conversations about Reader, Google, and RSS, but the process also gave rise to a number of myths and assumptions that deserve a second look.

    Myth: Google could have sold or open-sourced Reader

    Reality: De-tangling Reader from Google’s infrastructure was just not worth the effort.

    With companies like Digg declaring they will build an alternative, you have to wonder if Google could have salvaged its goodwill among Reader fans by spinning it off. After all, the company is frugal by its own admission, so an “exit with benefits” would have to be more appealing than an outright shutdown. It wouldn’t be the first time either, as SketchUp was spun off last year. The difference is that SketchUp sold for a lot more than Reader probably would, if rumors of $90 million are to be believed.

    Where SketchUp was a desktop app and a recent acquisition, Reader is a relatively old web service, one we can assume is deeply ingrained in Google’s systems. This would include services like login and the fundamental feed crawling that would be difficult to detangle into a standalone, open-source product. Exporting all that data to another company would again open the company up to more legal and privacy risks than it presumably would care to deal with. It’s possible users would have to explicitly agree to the arrangement, which would damage the value of the deal, and it’s also possible Google would be lambasted if it chose the “wrong company” and would be blamed for any subsequent mishandling of Reader.

    Instead, Google has provided the alternative of a straightforward data export, meaning users can migrate to other services in a matter of minutes. If the primary reason to sell would be goodwill among users, the data export probably serves that purpose better.

    Myth: Google cares more about Orkut than Reader

    Reality: Orkut is on the way out too.

    “We need to focus. Keep the self-driving cars, magic glasses, laptop, handheld OS, and Brazilian social network. Ditch the feed reader.”

    Pinboard (@Pinboard) March 14, 2013

    Four-thousand retweets can’t be wrong, right? Surely if Orkut is still alive and kicking, then Google must care more about that nine-year-old social network that never took over the world, but somehow gained a foothold in Brazil. The reality is that Reader was purged as part of an overall “spring cleaning” effort that began a few months after Larry Page took the reigns in 2011, promising “more wood behind fewer arrows.” If you think Orkut doesn’t fit into that pithy worldview, you’re probably right, and Google probably does want to shut it down. It’s just a matter of timing and shutting things down in the right sequence, as you can’t just pull the plug on a large product overnight.

    Another issue is that Orkut, in particular, is sensitive, as it’s the closest thing in Google’s catalog to Plus. Google’s already closed down other social products – Wave, Jaiku, and Buzz – so there’s still a perception that Plus is “yet another experiment” Google will probably tear down in a year or two. In fact, Plus is different because it’s a social layer on all of Google’s products. Google wants it to be your online identity, used when leaving Play store reviews, YouTube comments, or Spreadsheet edits. But until Plus earns users’ trust, many will continue to anticipate a shutdown and be cautious about embracing it, which may explain why Orkut has outlived Reader and many other defunct products.

    As for self-driving cars and magic glasses, they emerged as part of Google’s forward-looking X Lab. Google’s new focus doesn’t rule it out from its tradition of experimenting with new products; it just makes sure that products either evolve or die. Moving sideways is not an option. So while its tempting to lump Google’s more exotic services together, it really makes more sense to think of Google’s portfolio as having three buckets: legacy, experimental, and core.

    Myth: This is really about content lock-in

    Reality: This is about scale.

    To many mourning the loss of Reader, RSS symbolises freedom. Anyone with a web server can set up as a publisher and syndicate to readers who care enough to subscribe to the feed. If Google moves to a world of curated news like Currents, there’s a risk that freedom is lost, cutting off the long tail and making it hard for readers to get the news that matters to them. This is a realistic concern and one Google will have to address.

    However, it shouldn’t be confused with a conspiracy against all things RSS. Google provided a pretty good product for eight years, but it only enjoyed a luke-warm reception at a time when Facebook and Twitter were growing exponentially. Flipboard, likewise, is on a path towards mainstream adoption, which Reader simply never achieved. So it doesn’t take a lock-in motive to explain the move toward a world of Plus and Currents – just a recognition that while Reader served millions of users admirably, Google is more interested in going after billions.

    Myth: Google is destroying the RSS ecosystem

    Reality: This is a net positive for the RSS ecosystem.

    Google’s move is a double-edged sword for RSS. On the one hand, Reader was such a big part of the ecosystem that it held the standard together in many ways. As long as Reader could parse a feed, the publisher could find an audience. (And even get a reasonable measure of the audience just by tracking audience numbers on Reader.)

    However, Reader also choked the field of innovation. It’s hard for niche products to find an audience when the elephant in the room is busy providing a free service. And this was not a service that was actively improving. As Reader’s former manager has famously pointed out, management has been trying to pull engineers away from the project since 2008 and decided to kill it in 2010. Better for third-parties who care about RSS to pick up the reigns.

    And pick up the reigns they have. Some 500,000 people migrated to Feedly in the 48 hours after Google’s announcement. Digg’s upcoming implementation are in direct response to this announcement. Sites like ReplaceReader have been busy documenting dozens of Reader alternatives that are gaining traction right now. So we are starting to see companies innovating in a space that might otherwise have dwindled.

    “RSS is dead” memes are about as old as RSS itself. The standard remains tenuous. But with Reader out of the way, and under the guardianship of companies that care deeply about its values, the RSS model has the best chance in years to flourish and gain new users.

    Michael Mahemoff previously worked at Google and is founder of cloud podcasting service player.fm. Follow him on Twitter @mahemoff.

    Have an idea for a post you’d like to contribute to GigaOm? Click here for our guidelines and contact info.

    Photo courtesy  Ellerslie/Shutterstock.com.

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • Why Google killed off Google Reader: It was self-defense

    It’s not a huge surprise that Google is dropping Google Reader, the blog reader it operated since 2005. After all, they’d let it go for some time now (not that I’m complaining – it was after all, a free service, a fine product, and a boon for the overall ecosystem of blogging, podcasts and RSS).

    The reality, though, is that Google operates at vast scale, and a niche consumer product like Reader just doesn’t move the needle. As crazy as it may sound, today even a billion-dollar business is simply a distraction to Google (unless, of course, it’s well on the way to becoming a five-billion-dollar business).

    So all those who are signing petitions to Google  (and even one to The White House!) are missing the bigger point: that this is a victim of the company’s DNA, one that’s accelerated under Larry Page’s management. Some companies specialize in keeping the status quo, others specialize in moving forward. Google is the latter. If the company maintained every niche product with N thousand fans, even paying ones, it’d become the very bungling bureaucracy we love to hate. For a company with Google’s ethos and standing, any such dead-end, non-revenue-producing product that’s retained is holding others back, and prevents the company from moving forward and making true innovations instead of incremental improvements.

    Open standards just a means to an end

    While Google is giving up on Reader, I believe the company will still embrace subscriptions in a big way, just without RSS (by which I mean RSS, Atom, PubSubHubbub, etc.) Sure, they may continue to lean on RSS as part of their technical infrastructure – e.g. Googlebot will still be crawling external RSS feeds to identify fresh content – but users won’t see those three letters or the shiny feed icon that accompanies them.

    To understand why Google’s walking away from RSS, look at Google’s relationship with open standards over the past decade. Google has experimented with various open technologies and found it difficult to win over Google-scale audiences and developers. The list of casualties would include OpenSocial (present in Orkut but not Plus), Activity Streams (present in Buzz, but not Plus, though certainly an inspiration), Social Graph API (no longer available) and RSS (not just Reader, but Feedburner is fading out and podcast app Listen was killed months ago).

    Furthermore, Android has been a stonking success for the company, and while it may be open source, with a relatively open store policy, it’s not particularly based on open standards in the way that ChromeOS, WebOS, and now Firefox OS are.

    So overall, Google’s lesson has been to lead with a compelling user experience first and then build an API from there, an API which may be based on open standards, but only if it’s a means to an end. Developers are much more attracted to a big market than a glorious proclamation of Open. It’s this philosophy that explains why Google has been so cautious with the Google Plus API.

    Doubling down on media

    Google isn’t giving up on blogs and media. Far from it. They already have Google News, Google Currents, and Google Now. And on Plus, they have vibrant product pages and communities. The Economist, Time, and ESPN all have over 2 million followers, for example.

    This comes at a time when Facebook has been facing a backlash from journalists, with people saying that unless you’re paying for sponsored posts, it doesn’t show up in streams. Facebook’s recent design aims to fix this with a separate Subscriptions area, but as discussed on this week’s TWIT, it’s looking more like they experimented with subscriptions, that it wasn’t core to their business of connecting individuals, and now it’s off to the side.

    So Google has an opportunity to win over media brands right now, and I believe they’ll be placing an emphasis on this in their own apps like Currents, as well as on Google Plus proper. In many respects, Currents is exactly what you’d expect from Google in 2013. It’s pretty, mobile-native, and “just works” without anyone having to learn the details of RSS.

    Looking further ahead, Google has a vision heavily influenced by machine learning. The company has long known that the best search is the one you didn’t have to make, and this always-on attitude is now coming to fruition with Google Now. Google Now anticipates what users might be interested in at any time, and that includes the kind of articles people might presently be discovering on Google Plus.

    Reader’s demise is understandably a sad moment for many, but I believe in time, it will be a positive for the overall ecosystem. Google simply wasn’t innovating on Reader, and as people shift over to services like Feedly or Newsblur (and new ones are popping up as I write), those companies will have extra incentive to innovate and extra resources to do so. Meanwhile, Google will continue to work on what it does best: boiling oceans and shooting for the moon.

    Michael Mahemoff previously worked at Google and is founder of cloud podcasting service player.fm. Follow him on Twitter @mahemoff.

    Have an idea for a post you’d like to contribute to GigaOm? Click here for our guidelines and contact info.

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.