7 ms·
The article suggest that it was neither. That rather it was an engineering decision: the product did not have staffing to be properly maintained, and rather tha
by johnasmith 2y ago
The article suggest that it was neither. That rather it was an engineering decision: the product did not have staffing to be properly maintained, and rather than staff it up, it was easier to turn it down.
- mistermann 2y agoThey could be exploiting an undocumented/taboo feature of reality: simply telling people a good story can cause them to believe ("There is no reason at all to assume...") things that are not necessarily true.
- jrm4 2y agoAnd it strikes me as outrageously naive to accept this theory on its face.
- EVyesnoyesnoyes 2y agoThere is no reason at all to assume that the blog post was put in place to put google reader in a better light. And the original comment is weird anyway. Google had billions of views with and without google reader. The normal person doesn't use a RSS Reader at all. Even in my nerdy / tech group not everyone uses one. Feedly apparently hast 15 million users across the world.
- jrm4 2y agoI think there's very good reason to look past one blog post, people, come on. If I am a higher-up executive in Google, I'm not going to much care what the numbers on RSS look like now, it takes less half a brain to understand that Google Reader has at least a CHANCE at chewing into the bottom line hard if it takes off -- even if those chances are slim. I'd kill it quickly as possible. If I can do so early, with little fanfare, even better.
- wasteduniverse 2y ago[dead]
- blitzar 2y agoThe person died from the lack of oxygen going to their brain - it had nothing to do with the person strangling them.
- bananapub 2y agothat's backwards - organisational/cultural/management decisions made it be under-staffed, which caused the code to rot, which led to the "oh, it's understaffed and the code rotted, let's just kill it".