Google Reader’s demise is awful for Iranians, who use it to avoid censorship

Google Reader’s demise is awful for Iranians, who use it to avoid censorship | Quartz

Google Reader: Why did everyone’s favorite RSS program die? What free Web service will be next?

Google Reader: Why did everyone’s favorite RSS program die? What free Web service will be next? | Slate Magazine

That’s why we should all consider Reader’s death a wake-up call—a reminder that any time you choose to get involved with a new app, you should think about the long haul. It’s not a good idea to hook up with every great app that comes along, even if it’s terrifically innovative and mind-bogglingly cheap or even free. Indeed, you should be especially wary if something seems too cheap. That’s because software is expensive. To build and maintain the best software requires engineering and design talent that will only stick around when a company has an obvious way to make money. If you want to use programs that last, it’s not enough to consider how well they work. You’ve also got to be sure that there’s a solid business model attached to the code.

And if a particular tool is indispensable to you—your project management software, for instance—you might want to think about choosing one of those incredibly old-fashioned software companies that will allow you to pay for its stuff. Just paying for software doesn’t guarantee its longevity—companies that accept your money can always go out of business. But companies that take your money are at least signaling to you that their software is just as important to them as it is to you. On the other hand, companies that don’t take your money and won’t even say how the product you love will ever make money—hey, they’re fun for a romp, but don’t be surprised when they ditch town in the middle of the night. (I’m looking at you, TweetDeck, Tr.im, Memolane, Posterous and all those Yahoo apps!)

This calculus becomes especially difficult with software made by Google, a company that doesn’t charge for much of anything, isn’t transparent about how its products make money, and is fond of experimenting with lots and lots of new products (and, lately, of killing off stuff that’s not part of its central mission).

Google Reader lived on borrowed time: creator Chris Wetherell reflects

Google Reader lived on borrowed time: creator Chris Wetherell reflects | GigaOM

“When they replaced sharing with +1 on Google Reader, it was clear that this day was going to come,” he said. Wetherell, 43, is amazed that Reader has lasted this long. Even before the project saw the light of the day, Google executives were unsure about the service and it was through sheer perseverance that it squeaked out into the market. At one point, the management team threatened to cancel the project even before it saw the light of the day, if there was a delay.

Google Reader’s creator reflects | The Loop

Google Reader Lived on Borrowed Time | Daring Fireball

あとで読むとか RSS なんて無意味だ・・・

［I Love RSS］

How to reboot RSS | Scripting News

〈問題は後でじゃなく今なのだ・・・〉

[…] the Google Reader approach is wrong, it isn’t giving you what’s new — and that’s all that matters in news.

Succinctly put — news is about what’s new — and that’s it.

Why does Twitter work better for news than Google Reader? Simple, Twitter gives you what’s new now. You don’t have to hunt around to find the newest stuff. And it doesn’t waste your time by telling you how many unread items you have. Who cares. (It’s like asking how many NYT articles you haven’t read. It would be gargantuan. I don’t bother you with the number of Scripting News posts you haven’t read, so why does Google?)

Anil Dash: Unread counts have always … | Twitter

Unread counts have always sucked, @davewiner is right. But sadly, on iOS devices they’re the only thing you can add to an icon.

Dave Winer on Unread Counts | Daring Fireball