No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work

from the lots-of-paid-services-fail-too dept

Fri, Mar 15th 2013 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

With the imminent death of Google Reader, I've seen a number of people whose opinions I respect quite a bit, say something about how "this shows why paying for software is important," or, alternatively "why free software isn't a good idea." One of many examples of this is Dave Winer's statement: "Next time, please pay a fair price for the services you depend on. Those have a better chance of surviving the bubbles." Mike McDerment, CEO of Freshbooks, pointed me to an article he recently wrote about "why free is bad" when it comes to "key" services. I have a ton of respect for both of these guys, and I understand exactly where they're coming from, but I don't buy it.

Plenty of "paid" services go out of business as well, and often it's because not enough people pay. So they shut down. The end result is the same thing. Obviously, services need revenue to survive, and sometimes "free" + some other business model (freemium, ads, something else) won't bring in enough revenue -- and sometimes "paid" won't bring in enough revenue. Neither business model has a "premium" so to speak on being sure to bring in enough revenue. Each has different benefits and challenges. I've seen tons of services launch with a "pay" model, only to get a dozen or so customers and have to shut down. Similarly, there have been free services that have clearly been successful and made lots of money. And lots of things in between.

As we've said before there's nothing ideologically "pure" about a fee-based business model, as opposed to one supported through other revenue streams. If you charge, you're guaranteed to have fewer users. That can be a good thing, but it can also be a huge challenge. Furthermore, the suggestion that the providers of free services don't care about their users is not definitively true either. I'm sure it's true for some services, but I get treated like crap by plenty of fee-based providers as well. Similarly, free-based providers still need to treat users right, or they go away, and there goes their business model, no matter what it is.

Simple point: just because Google couldn't make a business out of a free RSS reader, it does not mean that business models that have a free component do not work, since, obviously, much of the rest of Google's business is based on offering stuff for free, and monetizing elsewhere. And, similarly, just because you have a paid app, it does not mean that enough people will pay to make a viable business out of it. In both cases, the situations are basically the same: whatever you do, you need to be able to bring in enough revenue, and that usually needs to involve offering a good product with plenty of benefits. The business model discussion that goes on top of that is interesting, but not defining in the way some people seem to want it to be.

Filed Under: business models, free, google reader, paid, software
Companies: google

77 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Mar 2013 @ 8:06pm

Free Google Stuff
I've used Google search for years and have never payed once for it. I've used Youtube for years, both watching and producing, and have never payed once for it (in fact, they pay me). Both of those services still exist and both those services show signs of making Google money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Long (profile), 17 Mar 2013 @ 9:32pm
  
  Re: Free Google Stuff
  Given the response from across the web, I bet tons of people were using Google�s back-end systems as a way to manage and synchronize their RSS news feeds, and then feeding that information into dedicated desktop clients and apps like Reeder, NetNewsWire, and Feedly.
  
  As such, it�s not that Google Reader had no users. It�s that Google got stuck running a warehouse full of servers that delivered information and not web pages. Since they weren�t web pages, there were no eyeballs looking at them, and as such Google had no way to serve up ads and monetize the service.
  
  http://www.isights.org/2013/03/thoughts-on-google-readers-demise.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Von Gauss (profile), 15 Mar 2013 @ 8:24pm

Just the opposite...
Google Reader was all about getting people to use Google services, and I would say in that sense it was a complete success. The question now because what, if any, impact the withdrawal of Google Reader will have on Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tracker1 (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 11:14pm
  
  Re: Just the opposite...
  Well, I can say that once Reader and iGoogle are gone, I'm far less inclined to use Google for search. I'd be willing to pay a nominal fee to keep them around.. I've already paid for NewsBlur (which is having growing pains in the fallout)... I may find another solution, or set of solutions. That said, the two of them are about 80% of my time online and without them, google looses my eyes (their product).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2013 @ 8:40pm

As we've said before there's nothing ideologically "pure" about a fee-based business model, as opposed to one supported through other revenue streams.

There really is no such thing as a "free model" either, and as you advertise as one of your services being tech business consultant, you fully understand that there is no such thing as free.

It is simply an alternative method of revenue raising, Techdirt is exactly the same !! we do not pay you directly for the articles you write and post here, we come here "for free", yet you still get paid but your income comes from 'not-direct' payments, in your case your are paid by page views and add bait profit.

Many businesses fail usually as you state because their revinue income does not meet expectations.

But as someone who knows something about business it is a high risk failure. You can greatly mitigate that risk with a solid and well researched business plan.

Also as you probably know, many factors are out of your control, you don't know that another company might be doing the exact same thing at the same time, that you cannot factor in your model. Or someone might just be better than you, or you product fails to gain enough support.

It's not a fixed, one off model and markets and attitudes change, but at the end of the day somehow you have to make enough money to fund it's existence. This applies exactly the same if 'free' or not. Someone has to pay in the end, just like TD has to be paid by someone to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2013 @ 9:06pm
  
  Re:
  TD isn't paid for by the ads. It's paid for by Mike's other business. He's stated many times that even the ad revenue would not cover the costs of maintaining the site, so the 'someone' paying for it... is Mike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Who pays Mike's other businesses? For all intents and purposes they appear to be basically, if not unknown, not even remotely close to the profile Techdirt has.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Suzanne Lainson (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 1:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Who pays Mike's other businesses? For all intents and purposes they appear to be basically, if not unknown, not even remotely close to the profile Techdirt has.
      
      A number of months back there was a discussion on Techdirt about to what extent a blogger should disclose sources of income. More recently I found this. Talk about complete disclosure.
      
      Disclosure Statement | Bottom-up
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice.
        
        We won't be seeing that from Mike or "Floor 64".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where is your disclosure statement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - gnudist, 16 Mar 2013 @ 5:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The fact you keep trying to distract from the main issues shows that Techdirt's arguements have real weight behind them you're unable to legitimately counter.
      
      I tip my hat to Masnick and the rest of the TD staff. Good show!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2013 @ 10:56pm
  
  Re:
  I like how you think you are saying something that everyone doesn't already know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 1:04am
  
  Re:
  In the software market there are millions of programs that are very successful and are free and open source.
  
  I am even writing this post from a free web browser running on a free operating system!
  
  There is a free model. Red hat and Canonical both make lots of money from their free model selling support for software that is completely free and the support that is available completely free online too.
  
  Apple managed to resell a free operating system and make loads of money out of it (albeit with a shiny skin on the front of it).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tomxp411 (profile), 15 Mar 2013 @ 8:40pm

Software as a service
It also points out why Software as a Service is a problem.

I discovered Google Reader by accident, and it was the first (and pretty much only) RSS reader I've used since then. Whatever reasons Google has chosen to cancel it are largely irrelevant; Google has the power to turn it off - and that's the problem. If I had a desktop RSS reader, it would be impossible for any company to simply pull the plug and make my reader go away.

I keep hearing about how Software As A Service is so great for the industry; it lets companies build a predictable income and it lets us "finance" our software by paying in small, bite size chunks.

But it also opens the door to having our service interrupted at any time.

For this reason alone - my lack of ensured continuity - I categorically reject the principle of relying on Software As A Service or a cloud platform as my primary way of doing anything.

Fortunately, Reader is a convenience and not a necessity. Before Reader, I simply kept a bookmark folder of daily reading. After Reader, I'll probably download a desktop RSS reader and start using that.

Either way, this is a huge wakeup call to all those people who look to the cloud as some sort form of software salvation.

The cloud is NOT your friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2013 @ 8:55pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the major network TV services (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) provide free TV signals that can be received with an antenna connected to your TV. They then sell time slots to advertisers in order to earn an income. Hmmm.... TV for free.... Free TV .... I wonder how that's been working out for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2013 @ 4:18pm
  
  Re:
  you pay all the time, with every purchase you make, as the people you are buying things off give money to the TV station (or google) for adds.
  
  So the TV is free, but you pay more for things like TV's and computers and software, and hamburgers and petrol and EVERYTHING you buy, because the price of the advertising is included in the purchase price of everything you buy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 15 Mar 2013 @ 9:07pm

The free RSS reader sites and apps out there that will flourish because of Google leaving the market prove that Google Reader dying is not the death of free RSS readers anyway. The death of one free service doesn't mean every free service in that market or niche isn't viable.

Google has a significantly different scale to deal with, and as much I hate their decision (along with the death of iGoogle), I understand that they don't consider their current number of Reader users, which other free RSS readers would love, "enough."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2013 @ 9:28pm

Free doesn't work, people need to be compensated for their work and investment. Of course mikey always thinks he's entitled to everything for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- flerp, 15 Mar 2013 @ 9:39pm
  
  Re:
  hey, how much do you pay to the w3c for html and javascript licensing fees for those and other proprietary standards used when you view a web page?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue_closet, 15 Mar 2013 @ 10:19pm
  
  Free doesn't work?
  Winamp, Open Office, Microsoft Security Essentials, MalwareBytes, AVG Antivirus, GMail, Mozilla Firefox, Chrome, CCleaner, 7Zip, Truecrypt, Audacity... That's just off the top of my head.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 1:07am
    
    Re: Free doesn't work?
    Blender, the GIMP, VLC, FFMPEG are a few more of the biggest free and open source software products I would say.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 5:10am
      
      Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
      Blender was released as open source code when the company developing it went out of business. It failed as a paid for app, but has succeeded as a free app, along with some awesome short movies to show off its capabilities.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
      Gimp is awesome and has been going for free for about 9 years or so... VLC is great and still going strong after about 13 years.
      
      But then, free doesn't work, does it? /s
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ezekial, 16 Mar 2013 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Free doesn't work?
    And every one of those programs with the exception of Chrome which is probably financed by other Google products, has a much better paid option you could buy rather than use half assed products made by college kids for a project
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
      Have you tried any of them out?
      If not why did you comment?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 6:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
      And every one of those programs with the exception of Chrome which is probably financed by other Google products, has a much better paid option you could buy rather than use half assed products made by college kids for a project
      
      What paid programs are better than Winamp, Firefox, VLC, 7zip, Audacity, Truecrypt, and I'll throw in Avast?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2013 @ 4:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        Paid versions of them, I guess?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 17 Mar 2013 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        Paid versions of them, I guess?
        
        Firefox, VLC, 7zip, Audacity and Truecrypt do not have paid versions, and I think they're all open source though not certain. Avast does have a paid version, and I think Winamp but I'm not sure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2013 @ 5:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        PGP better than Truecrypt, Winrar better than 7Zip, Adobe Audition and Diamond Cut 8 better than Audacity, PowerDVD 12 Ultra is much better than VLC and it supports 3D. NOD32 and Kaspersky are both much better than Avast.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 17 Mar 2013 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        The base version of PGP was created as free software - and would not have survived otherwise. Having a company making money from pgp at that stage wouold simply have created a target for attack by the authorities.
        
        Winrar is not better than 7 zip - WinraR IS A PAIN precisely because it isn't free. 7 zip is better by being free. It means I don't get nagged every time I want to decompress someone else's file.
        Audacity is good enough for my needs so I have no incentive to find out whether there is a better "paid" option out there.
        
        Same is true of PowerDVD vs vlc - in fact all those paid options have one thing in common. They constantly hassle their users to upgrade to a new version and pay more money.
        
        As far as anti-virus is concerned - well if we didn't have a vulnerable (paid) OS in the first place we wouldn't need any of them!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2013 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        Hell, if people would just use a bit of uncommon common sense in use of whatever os they have there'd be a lot less infections.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 8:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
      If I'd 'much better' you mean 'has features I don't need and costs money' then yes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ldne, 17 Mar 2013 @ 8:05am
      
      Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
      You obviously know zero about open source, I dumped windows 5 years ago for linux and my system is more stable and less troublesome today than windows 8 is and I haven't had a crash that wasn't directly my own fault since I ditched the blue screen of death, and even those are rare and only when I'm poking around changing things. Audacity is a professional level audio editor, not a kids toy, and film GIMP, a version tailored for film work, was used to generate most of the CGI for the first live action Scooby doo film. In fact, several of the most popular CGI software systems are Linux based. Most open source software isn't being developed by college kids for a project, it's developed by professional programmers looking for a hobby and a way to contribute.Oh, and Google itself, the most popular search engine in the world, is Linux based.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 17 Mar 2013 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        This.
        
        I switched from Windows to Linux over a decade ago, because Windows caused me massive data loss.
        
        What I didn't expect was how much better the overall experience was in almost every respect. I even get much better support with Linux and FOSS than I ever got with commercial software.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ezekial, 17 Mar 2013 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        And youre screwed if you want to play games. Linux is only good for productivity and web surfing
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 17 Mar 2013 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        Not as true as it used to be. Most modern games can be played in Linux now, although there are a handful that can't yet. Also, there is a suprisingly rich variety of high-quality native Linux games.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 6:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        http://store.steampowered.com/browse/linux/
        
        really?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Colin, 18 Mar 2013 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't work?
        A decent amount of the Humble Bundle games have Linux options, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2013 @ 10:57pm
  
  Re:
  Also, the sky is purple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 16 Mar 2013 @ 1:13am
  
  Re:
  "Free doesn't work, people need to be compensated for their work and investment."
  
  Tell that to the people who choose to give their work and investments away for free. And I'm not talking about someone who is banking on using free as a business model. I'm talking about all the professionals and hobbyists who contribute code, time, and effort to open source projects - some of which you have undoubtedly used, whether you knew it or not!
  
  Not everyone is a mercenary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 8:08pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 15th, 2013 @ 9:28pm
  he posted to a site paid for by Mike
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2013 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  Try telling that to INM and others who employ people to work on free software.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
flerp, 15 Mar 2013 @ 9:35pm

uh...
how many people do they think would have even touched google reader if it had been pay only? far fewer, i should think, and i suspect it would be even less lucrative to keep it running then. we would have seen it shuttered within a year of release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ole Juul (profile), 15 Mar 2013 @ 10:18pm

It's not about money
It's about ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 15 Mar 2013 @ 10:30pm

If you had to pay for Google Reader, it wouldn't have lasted a year. It would have been overwhelmed by free alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 15 Mar 2013 @ 11:47pm

Being a Window VS type and a huge Google fan, this sucks stating this ... Google is doomed. :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 12:50am

Google reader is kind of clunky to use, I tried using it, took forever to figure out and using other free methods were just better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 6:14pm
  
  Re:
  Google reader is kind of clunky to use, I tried using it, took forever to figure out and using other free methods were just better.
  
  Do tell! What do you prefer, since those of us using Google will be looking for those alternatives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 3:24am

Indeed free is back that's why Path of Exile "free" is so shitty and will eventually fail.

Wait a minuet! It dose not suck at all in fact it's fucking the best MMO I've played since Diablo 2. Did I mention you can't pay to win either. What's up with that? They should be shut down by now but they're not.

Sourceforge - FREE
GitHub - FREE
Hotmail - FREE
Skype - FREE "Fuck Skype I hate it."
AIM - FREE
A billion other things as well! - FUCKING FREE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ryuugami, 16 Mar 2013 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  Path of Exile, you say? Lemme check that...
  
  Wow, I don't usually play MMOs, but I'll try this one (after I clear some HDD space to install it...). I can't believe I haven't heard about it earlier (though it's still in open beta), thanks for the heads-up.
  
  From the developers:
  
  Path of Exile is completely free to download and play. We never intend to charge for content or access to the released game. In order to fund the development and continued expansion of Path of Exile, we offer a range of ethical microtransactions that allow you to distinguish yourself in the world of Wraeclast without receiving any gameplay advantage. We are completely opposed to the concept of �pay-to-win�.
  
  I really hope that they succeed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LMAO, 16 Mar 2013 @ 8:52am
  
  Re: LMAO
  You do understand 90% of web and game servers use LINUX that is free.Including GOOGLE.
  
  DEBIAN linux is the number one web server platform on the web
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 8:17pm
  
  Re:
  Neither Diablo 2 nor Path of Exile is an MMO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 3:31am

XML RSS feeders can only take you SO far..
I was just reading about this very topic on Google News, which is great because Mike wrote about it before the mainstream press.

The primary headline article is "Many people used Google to search for information on hemorrhoids last year" yet, it seems that there was an inaccurate RSS feed with keywords like this, or Google News is broken or likely his editor, changed the article after bootstrapping the article was complete.

Either way, I performed a Google Search about Hemorrhoids on Techdirt, and well, there are no articles, but this story about Google Reader is better anyway, and Mike Masnick doesn't use keywords in neferous ways like this.

Likely, this means Mike is a better reporter than USAToday, which I tend to believe ALL THE TIME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 3:50am

TOR2WEB.

Also free, created by Aaron Swartz.

Since he had the vision to open it, and it is open source, others can continue his work.

Google Reader on the other hand was a closed souce which of course creates problems since nobody can pick up the slack after.

This is where free and open shine.

There is more to free than just putting out for free of course, there are things people wouldn't touch even for free in this world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 8:23am

Well this is sort of sad that Google is ending the program, but at least most public domain works are availible.

Hey just a side note....I have had some issues signing in.... something about a certificate issues on the sign-in page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re:
  Where do I get free food and rent? Thanks
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2013 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Prision....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 8:27am

Product Lifecycles
As technology improves and changes some products will become obsolete. If Google believes that RSS feeds are becoming unimportant then dropping Google Reader makes sense because it will not bring eyeballs to Google.

All traditional business models are numbers games of determining how to get people to get, use, or view your product in sufficient numbers to make money from product or service sales or advertising. Get sufficient numbers and the business makes money.

Some freeware is advertising for the producer; it does an adequate job but the paid version does even more.

FOSS projects to be successful must attract both an interested community for support and enough users to provide a viable community and possibly some monetary support.

The fact is products come and go. Some have market niches that are long lasting and others have a much briefer lifetime.

How important will RSS feeds be in the future? I do not know but they could stay around as a secondary service for sometime. One can still find new typewriters because they are very useful in certain situations and there is a large enough market for a few companies to continue making them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corwin (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 9:01am

It means that CENTRALIZED doesn't work.
What sort of idiots... Look, the only service you can be certain will NOT be stopped is the one you run yourself. So, the client must be the server. Else, it WILL get raided or abandoned or cut off funds or something, at some point.

Now imagine a p2p news-spreader system borne exclusively within the browser. You are the cloud as long as you're using the site. Theoretically, the system works as long as SOMEone else is using it at the instant you start using it. Sort of NewsTorrent.

There. Problem solved. "I depended on Google and they killed my service, whine whine" - answer: NEVER count on what someone else might stop providing.

Peer-to-peer, flat, mesh network : Problem solved. (The "mesh" part is not all that solved, but "how to build a service that resists everything" is. The answer is "the server is the cloud of users, and crypto-sign everything as if you trust no-one".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2013 @ 3:40am
  
  Re: It means that CENTRALIZED doesn't work.
  The Internet protocols are designed to be peer to peer, but the use of dynamic IP addresses for domestic customers makes running your own services difficult. Torrent trackers are needed as a means of recording and distributing the current IP address of swarm members.
  The use of dynamic IP addresses is the biggest inhibitor of real distributed services.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LINUX, 16 Mar 2013 @ 9:04am

DEBIAN
I have used Debian linux for my OS, for years,it is all free.I have a free web phone number, I use jitsi as a client, My own rss reader. I even play world of warcraft using wine.It is faster and more stable than windows. You can add or remove services.Debian will run on almost any device.

No wonder Google uses linux, along with most web sites you visit everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 16 Mar 2013 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: DEBIAN
  Hi linux, that GUI looks stunning on you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gnudist, 16 Mar 2013 @ 10:19am

Free can work if that free means "freedom" in addition to "no cost"
Every single piece of software I use has been both high quality AND free(both in the "no cost" and in the liberty sense the FSF), many of which have survived that way for YEARS.

So clearly free does work, more so if it's free and open so that an abandoned project can be picked up by others who can continue to maintain it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
doubledeej (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 11:17am

Google
...it means that relying on Google to keep something around that they don't make money on doesn't work.

They've introduced a great many of high-profile products over the years, very few of which are actually still around. Other than Search, it is likely that nothing is off the table when it comes to selecting products to get the ax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 11:39am
  
  Re: Google
  Of course, the open sourcce aspects of google's android can be relied on to stay since google "giving it the axe" just means that someone else will maintain it (most likey multiple someone elses since there are both business and Free-as-in-speech software groups interests invested in it.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 11:43am

There's free and then there's free
Techdirt often points to free offerings which can then be used to convert some users into buying an upgrade or an additional service/item.

But there's also free with no intention to wring a monetary exchange from it. I like to talk about those actions more because they broaden our discussions of economic systems.

Maybe Google should have a system where it routinely spins off its services into free products which can exist as free, free-standing entities where no one is compensated for anything. If there is a user base which wants it, why not allow it to keep functioning? Why not donate some cloud space to these entities to keep these free services going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 17 Mar 2013 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: There's free and then there's free
  I was composing a comment in my mind to make this exact point.
  
  Most of the software I use every day is free, that lack of cost is not a business model on anyone's part. There is simply no intention of making money at all. I've taken part in such projects with others, and have produced a number of such applications (as well as ran a few such websites). This is the best, most reliable sort of free.
  
  Then there is "free" that is part of a larger for-profit business plan. There's nothing wrong with this, although I don't consider it really free. It's just provided at no monetary charge.
  
  People often confuse these two things, and think that all free software must have a money-making aspect to it somehow, somewhere. That just isn't the case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gerald Robinson (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 11:51am

"Free Services"
I agree with Anonymous Coward, there is no such thing as a free service. But there are plenty cases where paid services delete features or drop products MS office offers myriad examples. e.g. drop caps. Some are just too much trouble to maintain. I suspect that there are lots of examples like Google Reader that are hard to maintain compared to alternate services that offer more opportunity.

This is why SaaS is a terrible idea. I use Adobe cloud myself but can easily move to Vegas if its discontinued. When you own the product if the cloud service is disrupted or discontinued you can still use the product. If you depend on SaaS then you are sooo screwed!!

BTW there is a do it yourself RSS reader in Perl and another in Python kicking around as programming examples. They are easy to get going but would be a major pain to maintain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ole Juul (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 2:03pm

TCP/IP is free
Can you imagine if it wasn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 2:50pm

missing the point
I find it interesting that the article and discussion are so tight to the "Google didn't make enough money on Reader" meme.

Is is even about money, or revenue? Google didn't actually say anything about the metrics other than to indicate a decline in readership. Does Google really measure the worth of services in terms of pure revenue? I tend to doubt it.

I don't know why they canned it. Maybe the Google+ competition theories are right. Maybe it just took more resources than they wanted t sick into it. Maybe too much of the user base used ad-blockers. Maybe the ecosystem of third party readers "leeching" off the service bothered them.

But not enough revenue? Google not figuring out how to turn eyeballs into money? I don't buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 16 Mar 2013 @ 3:11pm
  
  Re: missing the point
  I don't know why they canned it. Maybe the Google+ competition theories are right. Maybe it just took more resources than they wanted t sick into it. Maybe too much of the user base used ad-blockers. Maybe the ecosystem of third party readers "leeching" off the service bothered them.
  
  That adds a new perspective to something I wrote. I asked why Google couldn't just allow this service to be free and run by volunteers? Why not keep it going under someone else's guidance? But if services like this are somehow a threat to the core business, then perhaps a company like Google wants to kill it rather than liberate it.
  
  Some people have suggested that Google sometimes starts projects more to undermine competitors than to create new businesses for itself. So if it accomplishes that, then perhaps Google sees no reason to maintain the service. Further, if the project has been disruptive, but now no longer benefits Google in any fashion, it might be a strategic decision to remove the product from the market rather than to enable someone else to carry on with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 17 Mar 2013 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re: missing the point
    I asked why Google couldn't just allow this service to be free and run by volunteers?
    
    Maybe they thought it wasn't worth the bother, as there are many existing alternatives to Google Reader anyway. The only thing Google Reader really brings to the table is integration with other Google services -- something that appeals to a minority of people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2013 @ 3:08pm

Google is actually trying to move people to G+
The point missed by the anti-free writers mentioned in this post is that Google is just being hamfisted in trying to grow their flagging G+ user base, by trying force Reader users over to Plus (as has been mentioned in a ton of articles about this issue).

It's not that free doesn't work, it's having a non-compelling application that doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
horse with no name, 18 Mar 2013 @ 9:39pm

If google can't make money on it, or justify paying to support it, then you know it truly, truly sucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 19 Mar 2013 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  If google can't make money on it, or justify paying to support it, then you know it truly, truly sucked.
  
  No, Google Reader does not suck at all. It's quite nice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Curtis, 19 Mar 2013 @ 2:33pm

Why has no editor pointed out that the Feedly team is completely reverse engineering the Google Reader system into a Google App that will be used with Feedly? Feedly is a very capable reader that works much like GR. And it's free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keysnod32, 30 Jun 2014 @ 12:01am

free keys nod32
do you tell about rss feed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]