Last week Google faced a surge of backlash for its decision to retire Reader. As a fan of RSS feeds and daily user of Reader, I identified with the rage being expressed online. However, as I narrated my woes to some of my friends, they seemed confused. As I paused for breath, a friend asked, “Umm, what is Reader, exactly?”
Here I was, in righteous rage about a service that I clearly cared about, but the larger world hardly knew that Reader existed, let alone that it would shutdown on July 1. Come to think of it, news and even tech websites invariably explain what the term RSS means, assuming that a good chunk of their readers might not know what RSS stands for or what it does. (To compare, just think: when was the last time you saw a website describe Twitter as a ‘micro-blogging site.’)
I stumbled into another startling fact when I went to the Google Reader blog to check out the official announcement, dated March 13, 2013. The previous entry was dated October 31, 2011. As Chris Wetherell, the creator of Reader, himself notes, Google Reader was “living on borrowed time.”
1. Free Isn’t Free
In a chat with Om Malik, Wetherell recalls how Google executives weren?t enthused by the idea of the Google Reader in the first place. It was only because of persistent efforts by engineers like Wetherell that Reader even saw the light of day. But once the product released, it quickly developed a loyal following. In comparison with other RSS clients of the day, Reader was quick, simple to use, had some ‘social’ features such as ‘Share’, and most importantly, was free like most Google products.
It was this last factor that killed nearly every other RSS client. Subsequent developments in the RSS space followed Reader’s lead — take for example, Feedly, a service that presented Reader feeds in a magazine-like format.
Which is why people were shocked with Google’s decision to shut down the service. None of the consumers expected that Reader would be one of the products axed under CEO Larry Page’s ‘more wood behind fewer arrows’ policy. After all, it was no failure like Buzz or Wave.
However, as it is now seems obvious, Reader did not fit into Google?s business model — which is to serve a product for free, and earn money by displaying ads. As this Forbes article notes, “Because Google couldn?t find a way to capitalize on Reader through indirect means like advertising (a shocking statement given its success compared to Google+), they feel no loyalty to keep it open – even when millions of people depend on it.”
As many RSS addicts like me are finding out, other services like NewsBlur or NetVibes actually charge money to allow access to RSS feeds. While this may seem painful, it is better in the long run. At least you know that the company won?t suddenly fold up despite having millions of users.
As blogger Dave Winer puts it, ??Next time, please pay a fair price for the services you depend on. Those have a better chance of surviving the bubbles.?? What is left unsaid is: Do not kill paid versions when a monopolistic giant places a free product in the same space.
2. We Live in a Social, Mobile World
Apart from the economics of it, Google may also have shuttered Reader because it may have seemed a bit behind-the-times in a mobile-first world.
Michael Mahemoff, an ex-googler and founder of player.fm notes, “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.”
It is not the ideal tool for a news-junkie, who would prefer to scroll through lists, not missing a single story. But it is perfect for a large number of users who access news on their smartphones or tablets.
These users — and I guess I can include my friends here — also rely more on socially curated news. Meaning they rely on Twitter and Facebook to follow news organisations they love as well as to get recommendations from their friends.
3. The Open Web is Under Threat More Than Ever Before
But while social networks or news aggregators like Zite and Flipboard may become our primary source of news, they are not as open as RSS. Facebook and Twitter have closed themselves off from search engines (mainly from Google) in order to monetise the social data. News aggregators like Flipboard, on the other hand, have proprietary algorithms which decide the news item you should read.
RSS, on the other hand, gave users a greater control over the information they wanted to access. It also allowed a number of developers to build products based on the standard, of which Reader was the biggest and most popular.
While Reader’s retirement doesn’t imply that RSS or the open web will die, it does show that a company like Google would rather put their hands up rather than build a business model around it. More specifically, they would prefer making money from closed systems over which they have greater control.
The good news is that Google?s exit from the RSS space leaves the field open for true innovators. Instapaper founder Marco Arment’s prediction puts it succinctly, ?It may suck in the interim before great alternatives mature and become widely supported, but in the long run, trust me: this is excellent news.?
Players like Feedly, NewsBlur, NetVibes and Digg have already stepped into the space the moment Google announced they are shutting down Reader. One of them, perhaps, will uncode how to make money from the open web, without alienating their large user base.