It's predatory to price something below the level that's possible for a viable independent business. It's bad for customers in tech for exactly the same reasons as in any other industry.
/used to work for a business that had to compete with twilio.
That's a definition that suits your view but is not commonly shared. The item typically needs to be sold below cost and there needs to be intent to drive out competitors. Neither is true here.
? if you give something away that a loss because it actually costs money to produce/provide, like Google did with the Reader service - it doesn't fit the definition?
what a crazy piece of logic.
google destroyed the market for smaller RSS-app vendors by providing a service for free, at a loss. was it on purpose? or just stupidity? what exactly does it change? the ecosystem around RSS has been ruined, maybe beyond repair.
> google destroyed the market for smaller RSS-app vendors by providing a service for free, at a loss. was it on purpose? or just stupidity? what exactly does it change? the ecosystem around RSS has been ruined, maybe beyond repair.
This is surely a joke, because the last time I checked software of my choosing can pluck RSS feeds and serve me content, whether it be a web, desktop, or mobile app. While the current quality of RSS apps can be argued, RSS is in no way near dead.
are you new to HN ? the last few days listed 10+ alternatives. Google allowed you to export your feeds that could be imported to any one of the alternatives offered. So whats the issue ?
The marginal cost to deliver a web service like Google Reader is near zero (which actually begs for it to be priced near zero). Every feed reader I have ever used has been free. The vast majority of Google's services are free.
/used to work for a business that had to compete with twilio.