Submitted by Jordan on
I've heard a lot of upset people complaining about Google's decision to close down Reader. I was also upset, because I've been a loyal user for some time, and I had to find an alternate feed reader. (I settled on Feedly, which is excellent.) But that's not why shutting down the service is a mistake.
I was originally upset because I'm afraid that Google has jumped the shark. I used to be a very active Yahoo user: mail, address book, calendar, to do lists, documents, even a customized home page. I even had a paid account. When their service started to go downhill, I switched to Google. I fell more and more in love with Google's wonderfulness and never looked back. But in the last year, Google closed down two products I actually used. The first is iGoogle, a customized home page that mimicks what I had with Yahoo. To be honest I hadn't used iGoogle in a while, so I understood why they were shutting it off. But I use Google Reader several times a day, every day. They couldn't figure out a way to monetize news feeds? Really? If this is the shape of things to come, I might have to bail on Google the way I bailed on Yahoo. Not sure where I'll go next; Google has a truly tremendous array of services and I use most of them.
One truism about Facebook is if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold. This is true with Google too. I'm fine with that, but the problem is raises is that if I'm not the customer, I can't complain about the product I receive, any more than a cow can complain that he's turning into a Happy Meal.
So, why should Google care? How was this actually a bad decision for Google? The answer: Google Plus.
For years, Google has been trying to defeat Facebook. Their attempts have been ham-handed at best. Never mind the fact that competing with Facebook is like trying to compete against VHS; it's yesterday's news. Facebook was brilliant because it was relatively new; social networks are now fifteen years old. What's the next big thing that's going to reshape the internet? Why isn't Google trying to look for that? It's like competing for the land speed record when you should be building a spaceship. Google got where it is today by being creative and thinking outside the box. Now they're turning into a lumbering behemoth reminiscient of Microsoft.
Why has Googel failed to beat Facebook? Partly because they weren't able to offer something that was actually better. Multi-way video chat with Google Hangouts is awesome, and the feature gets a lot of use, but that's not a social network. Another reason Google failed was because social networks need to be organic. Starting on college campuses was one of the most brilliant moves Facebook could have ever made. It supplanted Friendster and MySpace because it was better, but also because it offered a built-in organicness that the other networks lacked. I was a freshman in undergrad when Facebook came to my college. I was the target demographic. I had waited for months in rapt anticipation while the phrase "girls on Facebook are hotter" slowly became a meme. By the time I was allowed in, I was thrilled.
But the real tragedy here - for Google - is this:
They had a social network the entire time.
In fact, they had several.
See, Google Reader is a social network. I first started using it because a friend of mine used it. Not only did he use it, but he shared articles he found interesting. This "share feed" was its own thing, and I subscribed to that. My friend shared some neat stuff.
THAT'S IT, GOOGLE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. THAT IS A SOCIAL NETWORK. RIGHT THERE.
I don't think I can shout loud enough for them to hear me now. Pity.
The good news: They have another social network and they haven't borked it yet. I'm talking, of course, about Youtube. On Youtube, you have your own account. You even have your own "channel," a landing page people can visit. You can customize your channel with information, individual videos, and even lists. People can "subscribe" to you and get automatic notifications when you post something new. They can share your videos on their own channels. They can leave comments, and rate other people's comments. They can even post video replies. Not to mention integration with outside social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Those two services can't manage to talk to each other, but Youtube talks to both.
Google's third social network is Blogger. It's the simplest, easiest, most elegant way to blog on the web (for people who still do "long form"). Not only does your blogger account generate its own feed (which you can subscribe to using Reader - oops!), but it has its own interface so you can follow all your friends who are also on blogger. You can use your blogger account to leave comments on your friends' posts or sign their "guest book." (Don't have a Blogger account? That's okay, just use your gmail address! Turns out you already have a Google account!) Each blog shows a list of people who "follow" that blog, and you can click on each one to check out their blog.
Picassa does the same thing, but with photos. You see where this is going.
Let's say, instead of Plus, Google had chosen to wrap their existing services together. You'd have a platform that would let you post text, video, photos, or external links. Your friends could comment on your posts. Add in gchat and you're talking to your friends in real time - via instant message, voice, or even video. You'd have an activity feed that other people could follow. Sound familiar? It's just like Facebook, but actually better. Facebook doesn't support long-form blogging, its video support is pitiful, and Facebook chat doesn't support voice or video.
Best of all, this mythical Google network would include tens of millions of existing users, who have been using these services to connect with each other all along. It would be active and it would be real.
Instead, Google tried to invent the wheel and fell on its face. And now it's axing the services that people actually use.
This belies a lack of understanding of what makes a social network succeed. It also shows that Google doesn't really understand what it already has. To some extent, that's probably a good thing.
But that doesn't make me happy about it.