As a PM, though not one that works at Facebook, I would probably approach it something like, how do we ensure that our users stay interested in the homepage, coming back as often as possible and staying on it as long as possible?
There are lots of other sites competing for attention, and to sacrifice a good UX would be shortsighted, especially with all the “FB is dead” comments people have been making the last few years.
Though there is nothing terrible about your comment in itself, the fact that it is the most highly upvoted in this thread really shows how toxic this community can be. People here really seem to think that a company culture that tolerates or encourages sexual harassment is acceptable as long as it's not illegal.
It's strange to me that Google would go out of its way to implement such a feature for the UK. Google does censor certain videos for specific countries' sensitivities, simply because by not doing so, youtube.com will be repeatedly shut down by the respective courts.
But why the UK? It seems that they've committed to the path of censoring the Internet like some authoritarian regime, but it makes me wonder what happened behind closed doors between the parliament and Google management that would lead this to happen.
The first thing I looked for on that page was an image showing the Start button they've added back. I guess it's pretty telling that none of those pictures include the desktop and everything is showcasing the tablet interface now.
The Windows Modern UI isn't intended as a "tablet interface"; its intended as a form-factor agnostic new interface, the desktop is the legacy interface.
Now, I'm not saying I like the interface -- just that it isn't the "tablet interface".
The enhanced fullscreen browsing is pretty much also almost tablet only. Even on a 15" screen having fullscreen browser feels unusable to me – either the site has more-or-less fixed layout with a wide empty strip on each side, or it fills the entire screen so that lines are so long they are unreadable. I can't really imagine what it is to browse fullscreen on an even bigger screen.
I wouldn't really call it a "mantra" and I think it's a legitimate concern.
[1] Google already built a product similar to Keep, it was called "Notebook" and it was shut down after five years.
[2] If you really believe Google and think that declining traffic is a legitimate reason for closing Reader, then surely Google+ should have been on the chopping block much earlier than Reader.
1. Yep, I'm aware of Notebook. At the same time, though, notebook was built on an aging stack and had no mobile presence when it was killed. Keep can either be considered a rehash or a reboot of it, but it's a new take on the idea. I'm still trying it out for myself, but I've at least found it partially more helpful than Notebook for mobile use.
2. Google+ won't be killed, because it's a social layer that's built into Google. It isn't a singular product, but is baked into everything Google is doing now that involves social. Sure, at this point in time, it appears that the service is fairly low - but where was Twitter 20 months after launch? I might be playing a "Google card" here, but it's still a relatively new social network, compared to its competition.
I only wish that if they were going to launch further products, they'd tag them "beta," like they did in the past. That way, if they shut them down, it would at least make sense from a "well, it was a trial" standpoint.
He doesn't do a very good job arguing his point which is basically "Google moves forward rather than maintaining the status quo, so they can't afford to turn into a big bureaucracy with aging products."
Google has lots of products that no one's using, why take one away that many people depend on every day? The reason Google's getting rid of Reader is pretty simple, they don't want their own products for consuming and sharing information competing against each other, namely Google+.
Based on the title this is what I was expecting to read. RSS doesn't steal much/any of Facebook's market but its usage among the niche crowd that uses G+ is significantly higher.
I have been using Google Reader for ages, through FeeddlerRSS on my iOS device. For most of that time, I haven't thought for even a second "that's nice of Google, providing this sync service for free". I haven't seem a Google logo or ad, either. In fact, even now that I have been checking whether I actually use Google Reader, it took me quite an effort to find that out.
Given that, why would Google keep that service running for me?
Because people have come to rely on it. And no one is suggesting that they run it for free - they could easily charge a few bucks per year, cover their administrative overhead, and keep their foot in this space, while a) not losing money, and b) not losing trust from people who may want to adopt other google tech in the future.
I've still got gmail as an email which I use a lot, but would be extremely hesitant to ever trust them with anything else (I've also got other email I manage on my own). When the sands shift in a few years and gmail doesn't make sense for them any more, they may easily just shut it down, or severely limit it.
Google Business stuff? Would not use it. Google Checkout? I use it, and their tools have not developed at all in the past few years. Google Voice? They have to be losing money on the phone numbers, and I will not be surprised one bit if they shut it off in the next couple years. And people will whine/complain about that too, but the writing's been on the wall for a while - don't trust businesses that you don't pay money to (and don't trust a business to be around just because you pay them either, but it's a start).
One thing that stuck out to me in the article is the whole concept of "anonymous reading."
When did the need to make the distinction of anonymous vs non-anonymous reading arise? Anonymity was assumed for something as simple as picking up a book or a newspaper. It sounds as awkward and unnatural to me as taking an "anonymous shower" or anonymously picking my nose. Pretty scary that we're headed down this path where fewer and fewer things are private.
There are lots of other sites competing for attention, and to sacrifice a good UX would be shortsighted, especially with all the “FB is dead” comments people have been making the last few years.