|
suffix posted:wave was a good idea I mean, Wave could have been a massive hit like Slack, but Google completely mis-targeted it. The thing that irks me most about the final demise of Google+ is that Google killed Reader for it. That sucked both because Google Reader was legitimately the best thing on the internet when it was around, and because killing Google Reader helped cause the massive pivot of news to social media. I remember an article Buzzfeed of all places published after Google announced they were killing Reader, talking about how Reader was the single largest source of traffic to their site. But Google knew they had to kill Reader to get people to switch over to primarily using social media for sharing articles. They just didn't know that everyone would just do it on Facebook rather than the stupidly-complicated monstrosity that was Google+.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:12 |
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:dude reader was dead years before gooples. nice theory tho Google+ launched in July 2011, and Reader was still very popular then. Hell, in 2012 Google removed Reader's sharing functionality and replaced it with that dumb +1 button from Google+ to try and increase traffic to the social network. Then when that didn't do enough they just announced they were killing Reader entirely in March 2013. (2013 is when Google was in full "we must increase Google+ usage" madness mode, it was November of that year when they forced Youtube comments to be tied to Google+.) LanceHunter fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Apr 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Stick Insect posted:RSS lets me visit websites less often. Bad from an advertiser's point of view. Most of the articles in most site’s feeds were previews. Headline and first paragraph or so, with a link to the full article. It was enough to drive a lot of traffic for many sites (see earlier post where Buzzfeed said Reader was their top referrer).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2019 20:47
|
|