4 thoughts on “Google can ‘Keep’ it”

  1. Hey Abhilash – Its not a moral reason. Its a practical concern. Will this program exist 6 years from know when I will be very dependent on it. When my daily workflows will be dependent on this application in a key way.

    Once that confidence in a product is there, only then will you be judging it on the quality. I migrated my feeds from Reeder, but it also meant I had to reprogram a lot of my life, primarily on how I read my news.

  2. Not using “Keep” for purely moral reasons seems petty to me.

    Not using it for the plain fact that it sucks (as of now) would be a better one. No?

    Personally for me, neither the demise of Reader nor the launch of Keep has much significance. All my feeds are now on Feedly and casual note taking is not something I do often.

  3. The issue here is not one of dependence / or indeed over dependence. The product in question was not a flash in the pan, it had been running for at least 7 years. If a company (that seemingly runs its business on Internet applications and computing) shows a pattern that they would kill products which users rely on, and then launch products whose success is dependent on a users reliance of the product… I would not trust the company to keep the product running.

    Google is promoting its products as an alternative to successful existing products (Dropbox, Evernote)However it makes no statements as to the long term life of these products. Therefore they are happy to kill the product if its user base is small to them. (But in Internet terms, small is a misnomer. A small percentage of users for Google can extend into the millions)

    This is a expectation of continuity of a product from a company that wants us to switch from a product we use to their offering.

  4. I am trying to appreciate your and Om Malik’s point of view, but let us accept the reality that the world is largely such and will continue to be so. Technically speaking we have made ourselves slaves of tech or overly dependent on it in many ways knowingly (in our case) or unknowingly.

    We may think that a company chooses to launch or withdraw a product or service for ‘reasons best known to it’. People like you and me (and Om Malik) are actually pretty close to such companies to know exactly what goes behind the scenes of these ‘random acts’, and hence we ought to be a bit more immune to such occurrences.

    Given our ‘tech savvy nature’ and ‘high adoption’ of tech, we must be the people who advocate optimal dependence (to be defined) on tech, and yet we are the ones crying out foul!

    Think about it.

Comments are closed.