Google Reader was a huge part of the web experience for a small number of rather vocal people. It was a social network for many of them, and they feel like they lost something they built and owned.
Myself, I used google reader. But only for RSS. So I just moved to a different reader and I've been fine ever since.
I guess I just don't see the point of complaining when a company shuts down their own product.
It was a free product. It came with no guarantee. Just because you liked it doesn't mean you were entitled to it, and it doesn't mean Google did anything wrong by shuttering it.
If you are still using RSS, you need to get with the program. RSS aggregators are out of style for a reason...
What are you saying? That we should use Atom instead? There is no important difference between the protocols. Or are you saying that we shouldn't use "simple syndication" anymore? Why, so we can let Facebook tell us what to look at? Yeah no thanks.
I believe parent is saying that RSS became something publishers publishers did not prefer to Twitter, Facebook, and real-time search. Simple syndication might be preferable to users, but it is not for publishers.
Sure, but I don't see how that's a criticism of RSS? "Nobody uses it because users prefer it!" Besides it still drives e.g. podcasting; apparently those publishers are still making money.
Publishers of text, as a whole, do not prefer RSS to other options to serve the same purpose. That's not a criticism, just a comparison. It means that given the choice, which publishers mainly are, they opt for things that aren't RSS.
Wait - bear in mind that at the time the alternatives were MySpace, Friendster (already dying), Orkut (also a Google product, and no traction in the US).
"Only for RSS" is the technologist's blind spot - the _experience_ of RSS is what Dave is talking about. What was "the blogosphere". That's been completely co-opted by huge corporate platforms.
Let me clarify. I moved to a different reader so that I could continue to have the experience of RSS. To this day, I continue to have the experience of RSS. It hasn't become unavailable. RSS just became less popular, and Google Reader shutting down was a recognition of this.
By the time Google Reader was shut down (2013), Twitter and Facebook were real and strong social networks. There were also plenty of other readers. With this in mind, what do you think the non-technologist sees as the great loss of Google Reader being shut down? Bearing in mind that the experience of "the blogosphere" was already shrinking, not caused by Google Reader shutting down, and that the experience of RSS continues to be available? Can you help me understand?
Myself, I used google reader. But only for RSS. So I just moved to a different reader and I've been fine ever since.