Google’s obviously fake excuse for killing their RSS reader (declining usage) was especially maddening at the time because they were pushing Google+ - which _nobody_ used.

• timmg

  today at 9:07 PM

  As someone who was a big fan of Reader and worked at Google at the time (not on G+): I never understood why they didn’t try to put Reader into G+.

  Like you could imagine getting your RSS feed in your G+ stream. If you didn’t want any social stuff you could just use it as a reader. But it would also give you an easy way to share stuff from your feed. And it might have been useful for those providing RSS feeds to interact more with their readers (if they chose to.)

  I think it would have been an interesting way to bootstrap things.

  • glenstein

    today at 9:18 PM

    Exactly. Reader was maturing into a proto social network in its own right (I started commenting on articles with friends in it in college right before it started getting deprecated) and finding the organic activity and rolling with it and thinking in terms of honoring the core users could have been a very good strategy.

    Google Plus could have worked imo and the path to success would have involved smart stewardship of reader.

• deepsun

  today at 9:20 PM

  Same thing with Google Music, it was perfect. You could stream, or could buy and download mp3, or you could upload your library to it.

  And the best feature: "I am feeling lucky" -- play a random song you ever liked and the keep playing a generated playlist off it.

  But they killed it due to internal wars with YouTube Music that sucks. There's still nothing like Google Music.

• firefax

  today at 8:35 PM

  It was a great example of being evil -- they reduced user choice while pushing an inferior product.

  • InsideOutSanta

    today at 8:42 PM

    And then killed it too. They killed a tool people loved to promote a tool people didn't want to adopt, and in the end both ended up dead.

    • galaxyLogic

      today at 9:14 PM

      And killing G+ killed a community. I lost many could be real-friends, whom I've never heard from since. That if anyting was Evil, killing a community.

    • leoc

      today at 9:12 PM

      The final irony is that if they'd just maintained G+ a bit better and kept it around after 2018 it's likely they'd eventually have had a decent chance to pick up a number of waves of unhappy people leaving Facebook or Twitter.

      But, ceterum censeo: while Vic Gundotra may have been the main force behind G+ it's important to emphasise that, as usual, the buck stops with Google's Class B overlords Page and Brin personally. If they were the decent people and responsible stewards they were originally promoted as then the Google+ debacle would not have happened, or certainly not in the way it did.

• thataccount

  today at 9:19 PM

  But they totally used Google wave. It was/is the future.

• alightsoul

  today at 8:44 PM

  As a result many people in developing countries were driven towards social media like instagram and TikTok where they get their news. And now they're addicted to them.

  • dannyobrien

    today at 9:15 PM

    At the time, I was working at the Committee to Protect Journalists with dissident bloggers working in Syria, Egypt, UAE, Turkey, etc. We had a group of them come to the US to talk to the big tech companies about the issues they were struggling with: fake takedowns, language support, local censorship, and so on. I remember distinctly as we worked on the agenda for the meeting with Google that Google Reader being shut down was the first complaint any of us mentioned. We laughed, but it was serious.

• pronik

  today at 9:09 PM

  Probably Google's biggest failure ever was to recognize they've already had a social network: Gmail.

  • jonas21

    today at 9:23 PM

    They did, in fact, recognize this. They tried to add social networking features to Gmail (Google Buzz [1]), but it received a lot of backlash from people who did not want their email to be a social network.

    The social network they were failing to develop was YouTube. But eventually, they came around, and it's estimated that it would be a $550B standalone business today [2]. Better late than never.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz

    [2] https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/youtube-valuation-wort...

Google Reader going away felt like the beginning of the end the internet as I knew it. I miss websites

• tombert

  today at 9:23 PM

  Yeah. There honestly was a purity to the disconnected nature of shitty Geocities and Angelfires pages, where filled with amateurs writing shitty HTML just because they thought it would be cool to have their own web site.

  That's not a dig, to be clear. I was one of those kids writing shitty HTML for Geocities.

  I don't hate the modern internet, but I feel like there's roughly now about ~10 sites that I visit frequently, whereas when I was a teenager there were lots more. Maybe it's just my "old man yells at cloud" moment.

• adamm255

  today at 8:41 PM

  "I miss websites". Damn that hit. I realise the only place pushing me to an actual website these days are my RSS feeds (self hosted FreshRSS), and HN. Maybe very occasional share on LinkedIn.

• danesparza

  today at 8:28 PM

  I'm still bitter about Google Reader going away. I endorse this sentiment.

  • gertlex

    today at 8:57 PM

    Me too, but there were some replacements that made me happy because they fixed some irk with google's version. (I think I used Commafeed?)

    I eventually got away from subscribing to like 50 webcomics (all I used RSS for... most other stuff was too high-volume, and I liked reading everything in my feed, iirc) though and stopped using an RSS feed altogether.

Just why bother relying on Google products for RSS?

I use for the last many years NetNewsWire and have never had any problems reading the news I want to read.

For ref: https://github.com/Ranchero-Software/NetNewsWire

• carlosjobim

  today at 9:10 PM

  And he includes a Safari plugin to get an RSS button back into the interface for easy subscribing (on Mac).

I don’t understand why many sites with news updates / blogs don’t offer an RSS feed. Are they expecting me to keep visiting the site over and over to see if there is new content? They’re guaranteeing I’ll never visit their site again.

Perhaps they’re expecting people to subscribe to social media accounts or via email, but those both cost money to reach users. RSS is free.

I think the core issue is that it is hard to sell why you need an RSS, especially for the average user. It would not be uncommon to meet an IT professional who has at best heard the term, but never really tried to delve further. Sadly by the time the average internet dweller hears of RSS, their mind is already so ingrained in the "usual" browsing experience that anything that is out of the ordinary feels instinctively wrong, even if it clearly has multiple merits.

• carlosjobim

  today at 9:13 PM

  I don't think the average person has to be taken into account all the time. There are millions of companies providing products and services which the average person has no interest in. Most books and music has no appeal to the average person, neither do most sports or hobbies.

Feeds still have a lot of inertia, at least. Most blogs generate them out of the box, and Wordpress being as predominant as it still is means you can still find them even where you don't expect to. Even social media profiles can compress into feeds with a little help from solutions like Nitter (or in Bluesky's case, offered natively). What I think is really missed is the social component that Reader had, which you still can't really find even with the variety of great readers that came in its wake.

I know I will probably just migrate them to RSSHub when the time calls, but YouTube's channel and playlist feeds have been such a great way to follow a large number of creators. I'm still holding my breath for the day they unceremoniously stop working.

You never know what will be someone's straw-that-broke-the-camels-back moment, but this was it for me. Nothing in this post was new news, but despite that, seeing it written down in one place made me realize just the type of person, I mean company, that you are and what you really want, Google. For too long I've been holding on to the "do no evil" person, I mean company, that you once were. But now it's clear to me... you're a toxic friend. We've been drifting apart for years, but now it's official... we're breaking up. I'm sure there's a person, I mean company, out there for me. One that will treat me right, be good to me, and respect me as a person and I'm going to find it.

When chrome took the stage, it was the only popular browser that didn't display rss feeds XML in a readable way. It still does not to this day.

What did Google benefit from killing rss? Seems like that would help engagement on the web in general.

• tommek4077

  today at 8:22 PM

  You couldnt put ads that easily in rss feeds.

• goldenarm

  today at 8:24 PM

  They killed greader and RSS to push Google+, which was a brilliant decision.

• InsideOutSanta

  today at 8:43 PM

  It's a decentralized solution in a world where google wants everything to go through google.

• danesparza

  today at 8:28 PM

  Ad revenue.

  • today at 8:48 PM

• today at 8:26 PM

RSS is still alive yarr is fantastic

i still use feeds often

https://github.com/rumca-js/awesome-database-feeds

often using my crawling server because rss are often protected against bots

https://github.com/rumca-js/crawler-buddy

RSS was never going to work anyway due to lack of monetization. If this is not true you would still see them today. See everyone posting archive paywall bypassing links on every opportunity here, lol.

Yeah, fuck Google for all of this.

That's my intellectually considered response.

Fuck Google.

• rpdillon

  today at 8:26 PM

  Upvoted not for your particular phrasing, but because in a sense, this was my experience as well: I wanted to work at Google, and I thought Google was learning how to marry a great business with treating customers well. Killing GReader was the inflection point for me, when Google tipped from "Great!" to "Kinda evil". It's been a slide every since.

[dead]

This is the Company of Pure Evil.

Whatever it touches, it destroys - excluding adMoney. That's its only soul.

What I have also noticed is that people are no longer happy to say "I worked at Google". It's now more a career killer (to some extent) than an accelerator.

Anyone remember Google+? Nobody used it but Google tried to force-abuse people into using it.