I am a long-time user of iGoogle too, but I can understand their logic. It's not just the cost of updates and support, but the opportunity cost of encouraging people to hang onto antiquated tools instead of moving to newer ones that are more integrated and profitable. They could offer to charge for some of the services to offset the lost revenue, but Google prefers to offer as much as they can free (ad supported), and given that there are better alternatives already out there, would seem a little silly.

In this case, I think want people's RSS to be replaced by G+.

Most people will just move to an alternative reader, but I guess any additional G+ page views are revenue-positive.

Though clearly G+ has nothing to do with "profitable" quite yet. :)

Maybe I am too set in my ways, but I didn't find any of the iGoogle alternatives I tried to be better in any sense. And frankly why do I have to learn another interface when I have one that works perfectly well for my needs?

Petition
 

Petition to ask Google to stop the slaughter of Reader. Don't know if it will make a difference, but no harm in trying:

https://www.change.org/petitions/goo...-running#share

I bet this is a ploy, they found some horrible way to integrate it with google plus, so when they bring back the lame thing, less people will complain about it.

-David

speaking of which ..

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013...art-of-google/

At least with picasa we have a choice to revert back to the old UI.

If Google wants to kill off a service that nobody wants, why not eliminate Google+ instead? That would free up plenty of resources to continue maintenance of Google Reader! @:-)

I tried feedly today, it's pretty good, I may stick with it. They are creating their own back end, meanwhile it's seamless with google reader credentials and subs. (use your google login, it will just pick up all your subs, do it now, before July 1).

I've tried a few others, none of them really panned out.

-David

Another vote for Feedly - spent some time searching for a replacement, and Feedly is what I'm sticking with for now.

It IS interesting. I've spoken with a number of bloggers in the past couple days and goog VC's, investors. The thing is, while G+ is the "future", (personally, I still consider it an also ran, it's more of an ANTI-FB than a goto, the percent of bloggers who see traffic from G+ vs. those who see traffic from Google Reader is nothing. Almost a rounding error. There are a couple who ONLY use G+, and therefore their numbers are much higher, but compared to offering both (or all including ezines, digg, etc.) reader still brings in the lions share. Still not really sure the motivation here.

I'm currently trying out NewsBlur, NetVibes and Feedly. I also wanted to try TheOldReader, but it's been unable to keep up with demand.

Thanks to Google regularly messing about with services people rely on, I've been edging more towards Microsoft of late. I was going to migrate completely to gmail and Google's calendaring tools, but working well with any device matters a great deal to me (hence my iCloud mail, calendar and cloud storage service is hardly ever used these days).

All this is also making me think twice about buying a Chrombook. Yes, I know at the moment a Chromebook will work very well with Microsoft's web based services (I use both Sky Drive and Google Docs) but Google are just too unpredictable for me. The same goes for Apple after the way they killed various Mobile Me service (and FGS, that was a paid service - you're supposed to be able to rely on those)!

Feebly is working AOK on my Wintel notebook.

Don't like it for my ICS Android mobile devices.

Here's a list that might help others find personal solutions they like.

http://www.rss-readers.org/list-of-rs-feed-reader/

Trust me, G+ is very profitable. That's why they are doing it... it is a business decision. It benefits the user, too, as it provides the same functionality as Google Reader plus the option of being interactive. Nothing is lost, and much is to be gained.

You're correct that many will whine and shift to an alternative reader, but if they move to a similarly antiquated one, they'll eventually move on.

There's no need to learn anything new with G+ if you ignore that additional features, but you might find it beneficial to engage with the quick learning curve.

It won't make a difference any more than it would have made a difference to protest when video stores started pulling VHS tapes in favor of DVDs (and later, shutting down all together). RSS feeds are an antiquated and inferior technology, and even though many people used to them will complain about changing to something better, it won't halt the progress. Remember also that Google isn't a government organization... they are perfectly entitled to take business decisions that benefit them (and in this case, their users too).

G+ is now the #2 social network and gaining quickly on Facebook. The perception that "nobody wants it" is because most people misunderstand social networks to be like Facebook where there is a "wall" where you directly post/share. G+ is essentially a layer of higher-level information built into the existing Google infrastructure... it is widely used, despite most users not even realize they are using it. That will change in time.

The cessation of Reader has nothing to do with a lack of resources available. It has everything to do with the desire to shift those resources to something more productive for both Google and their user base. They are well aware that many people will dig their heels in and stick with something like Feedly, but they know that as time passes, people will move onto more robust services and G+ will be one option some will move onto.

Oh, okay.

No. People just want a basic reader, regardless of your calling it antiquated.