The Killing Of Google Reader Highlights The Risk Of Relying On A Single Provider

from the leaves-open-an-opportunity dept

Every few months, Google has been "shutting down" various offerings they feel are under-used, in an effort to regain some focus. Many of these are uncontroversial, though a few have been surprising and freaked some users out. Many, for example, were surprised and upset when Google announced it was phasing out iGoogle. But today's news that it is shutting down Google Reader took many, many people by surprise. My Twitter feed blew up with people freaking out about it. For those who use it, many really rely on it for their daily information gathering process. I know the feeling, because I used to do that -- though a few years ago I shifted to mostly using Twitter via a well-organized Tweetdeck, and found that to be just as (if not more) effective, though a somewhat different overall experience that took some getting used to.

Still, a very large number of folks I know feel like they practically live inside Google Reader -- and I know (for example) that Google Reader is a huge driver of traffic to this site, so I get the feeling many of you use Google Reader as well. The thing that seems to have so many folks upset is the fact that there really aren't any comparable alternatives if you want that same basic experience. In fact, you could argue that Google effectively killed off many of those alternatives. Back in the day there were things like Newsgator and Bloglines, but both were effectively marginalized or pushed into other markets because Google Reader really did become the de facto standard RSS reader that so many used and relied on.

Anyway, I have a few separate thoughts on all of this and might as well go through them bullet point style:

• This highlights the problem of relying too much on a single provider when there are few alternatives. As such, I wonder if Google may not realize the wider impact of this move. For example, it has me directly rethinking how much I rely on Google Calendar, Google Drive and Gmail. Now, I don't think any of those are going away any time soon, but not too long ago (um, yesterday, according to some...) you could have said the same exact thing about Reader. I'm now planning to do a more serious personal audit of services I use and how reliant I am on a single provider, and start making sure I have working alternatives in place and ready to go. In the end, this will certainly make me a lot less tied to Google's services, which is probably a good thing, but probably not the sort of thing Google is hoping its users will be doing.
• As mentioned, personally, I moved away from RSS readers to a purely Twitter/Tweetdeck approach to consuming news. It took a few months of doing both, but when I shut down the RSS reader, I never looked back. It's a different experience, but has some benefits. But, what that suggests is that if people are looking for a culprit for what brought us to this moment, Twitter is the prime suspect. Yes, Twitter and RSS are different in many significant ways. But, in terms of the basic user benefit that people get out of both ("my stream of news & info"), they clearly compete.
• The lack of serious alternatives represents a serious opportunity for someone enterprising. Believe it or not, before Google Reader even launched we at Techdirt had built our own RSS reader, called the Techdirt InfoAdvisor, that functioned quite a lot like Google Reader, but which had some other really useful features for us internally and for some of our business clients (we would use it to curate accounts for clients, with added commentary from us). Eventually, we shut it down, because (as Google has discovered), it's actually a lot of work to maintain something like that for a variety of reasons, and soaks up tremendous resources. Still, my first reaction was to joke that maybe we should dust off our old code, put it up and see if anyone wanted to use it. We're not likely to do that (unless all of you start throwing money our way), but someone else likely is going to jump into this space quickly. They may not build a huge business out of it, but I'd bet if they weren't looking for VC-style hockey stick returns, that someone could build a decent business out of it.
• It is always interesting to look at product lifecycles, but most of the time when online products die off, the writing was on the wall long before it happened. This one struck me as a surprise since so many people relied so heavily on it, and it seems really abrupt and likely to upset the basic workflow of so many -- especially in the journalism and academic fields. I can respect the reasons for killing off a "non-essential" product, but it feels like Google seriously underestimated the level to which people had built Google reader into their daily lives.

It wouldn't surprise me, given how loud the backlash is, if Google extends the deadline for shutting down Reader, or if it eventually tries to work out some sort of alternative resolution. We saw the same thing, to a lesser extent, back when AskJeeves tried to shut down Bloglines (the Google Reader of its day before Google Reader existed). And, eventually, Ask sold it off to another company who apparently has kept it running (though, who knows how many users it has today). I think that experience actually pushed a bunch of Bloglines users to jump to Google on the assumption that Google Reader was safe. You would think that someone within Google would remember how that whole thing played out. It's surprising that they don't appear to have learned anything from it.

Filed Under: alternatives, google reader, readers, rss, shutting down, single providers
Companies: google, twitter

Why Didn't Media Companies Create Their Own Zite?

from the $40-million-would-have-been-nice... dept

While we're wondering how the NY Times might have better spent the $40 million they dumped into the Emperor's New Paywall, when you combine that with the story of a bunch of big media companies ordering Zite to stop making their content more useful and readable, you come to the natural question of wondering why these big media companies haven't made their own Zites:

For publishers, the problem is that Zite is really, really good at personalization and filtering. In my use of the app over the past few weeks, I’ve consistently found that the app shows me headlines I want to click on – and that’s the test that really matters.

We in media should think about what led us to this place, where major news outlets are targeting a company that is creating something they should create: an innovative, personalized news source.

What efforts have major media companies made to build or enable their own innovative news consumption products?

Couldn't the NY Times or News Corp. have spent the millions they've spent on locking up their content towards something like Zite that actually makes their content more valuable and more useful? The problem seems to be that they value the content over all, and don't realize that, just as important as the content itself, is how people find and interact with it. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that any of the big media properties recognize that yet.

Filed Under: aggregation, journalism, readers, tools
Companies: zite

Washington Post Tells Reporters To Stop Engaging Readers On Twitter

from the how-not-to-connect dept

I've occasionally gotten into debates with Techdirt critics on Twitter, and I'll admit the medium is not all that well-suited for thoughtful debate. But, I have found that it is often a good way to, at least, better understand why someone might be upset about something we said or did, and to perhaps try to address it in some other manner (a separate blog post, email, etc.). Of course, it's certainly possible to do a bad job of engaging someone via Twitter, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to say that it's a mistake to respond to criticism. Yet, it appears that's what the Washington Post did. It had published a rather ridiculous story from an "anti-gay activist" implying that being gay is a mental health issue, touching on a few recent stories of suicides by several teenagers who were, in some manner, bullied for their homosexuality. Not surprisingly, a gay activist group, GLAAD, complained on Twitter about the article.

The Washington Post's official Twitter feed tried to defend the story, by claiming that the newspaper was trying to cover "both sides" of the story. As GLAAD correctly pointed out, this was not a story that had "both sides." It's unfortunate that so many news organizations appear to believe that there are two (and only two) sides to every story, and are willing to report each equally without ever taking a stand on which is the actual story. Either way, after this exchange, the Washington Post alerted its staffers to no longer engage with the public via Twitter in this manner:

Even as we encourage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolutely vital to remember that the purpose of these Post branded accounts is to use them as a platform to promote news, bring in user generated content and increase audience engagement with Post content. No branded Post accounts should be used to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, just as you should follow our normal journalistic guidelines in not using your personal social media accounts to speak on behalf of the Post.

Perhaps it would be useful to think of the issue this way: when we write a story, our readers are free to respond and we provide them a venue to do so. We sometimes engage them in a private verbal conversation, but once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor--and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It's something we don't do.

Now, this raises some questions. First of all, if part of the purpose is to increase audience engagement, doesn't that involve... um... engaging? It seems weird to suggest the way to increase user engagement is to avoid engaging. On top of that, the second paragraph just has me shaking my head. Why wouldn't a newspaper let a reporter publish a rebuttal? Isn't that what engagement is about? The search for "truth" comes from discussing things with different viewpoints, and it seems like something of a massive cop-out for the Washington Post to say that it will refrain from engaging with those who question its reporting.

Filed Under: engagement, readers, twitter, washington post

The Killer Feature I Would Design Into An Apple Tablet

from the e-Reader,-we-hardly-knew-ye dept

To be clear, I've no influence in Cupertino, and the closest I've ever been to Steve Jobs was when I wore a black turtleneck skiing. But that said, there were a few developments at CES that got me thinking about a killer feature for a tablet. So here are the specific three developments from CES that stood out to me, and how I'd combine them in a disruptive tablet.

First, small, portable computing platforms were hot. No surprise to anyone, but Netbooks were all over the show, in creative new formats, layouts, OSes, and component make-ups. This sector has already proven to be a consumer favorite, and the OEMs are responding in force. Tablets, slates, and new formats were being shown by a variety of vendors hoping to get the jump on Apple, notably Microsoft in what could be described as an anemic Keynote by Ballmer.

Second, e-Readers were exploding out of the booths. There were new e-Readers on display from Huawei, Spring Design, Plastic Logic, Entourage eDGe and many more. Many analysts predict growth in the e-Reader sector, largely predicated on the notion that the readers use crystal clear e-ink screens, which greatly extend battery life, are easier on the eyes, and can be read indoors or out. Devices with standard LCD screens like Netbooks or iPhones churn through batteries too quickly to pose a direct threat to e-Readers. Thus, for now, this sector is seen as "protected" from the cheaper or more versatile Smartphones, Netbooks and tablets.

Third, there was an immense amount of innovation in screen configurations across Netbooks, TVs, laptops, etc. We saw two-screen laptops, touchscreens, tablets, double screen e-Readers, MEMS displays from Qualcomm, and more. Among the cool new screen technologies was one from PixelQi (discussed at GigaOm). The PixelQi (pronounced Pixel Chee) screen can operate in two modes: one which is like a standard backlit LCD laptop screen, and a second that closely resembles the e-ink of the Kindle. In this high-resolution, black-on-white mode, power consumption is cut to ~1/3 of a regular laptop screen. This mode also is easier on the eyes, and can be read easily in sunlight. PixelQi technology is cool in and of itself, since, as processors get more efficient, screens are becoming a relatively larger portion of the power budget - any savings here could have a dramatic impact on battery life. One could switch a laptop into "ink mode" and extend battery life at the expense of color.

I think you see where I'm going. If I were Jobs, I'd launch a tablet that used the iPhone OS, had access to the app store, iTunes, Safari browser...AND had an 8-10" dual-mode screen. Such a tablet could suck the air out of the room for e-reader makers. A company like Apple has the clout to get access to a wide range of book content, including the NYT bestseller lists. If so, Apple's tablet could quickly end the dedicated reader era. Consider a tablet that offers the value proposition of an e-Reader, a Netbook, GPS, and 100k apps. That's the kind of product that could justify a price premium over a $300 Netbook or Reader.

Either way, I see the dedicated reader market fading in the future, much as PDAs did. Not that they're not in demand, but the dedicated Readers will evolve and be subsumed into general-purpose tablets, or will be beaten by tablets that can do more. If it's not Apple or PixelQi next month, it's going to be somebody else within a year. Either way, buyers win: we're all going to benefit from the active innovation in the screen/display category, and more functional devices with better battery life.

Filed Under: devices, readers, screens, tablet