????山景城谷歌公司的人們一定知道,，最大聲的哀嚎將來(lái)自媒體——來(lái)自我們這幫為損失痛哭的新聞狂人,。過(guò)去的五年中，谷歌定制的RSS閱讀器的新聞搜尋速度驚人,，無(wú)人能及,。

????而如今，從7月1日起,，它將不復(fù)存在,。

????我花一分鐘用Reader收集的信息量就能充實(shí)我一天的生活，這一點(diǎn)至今仍然讓我覺(jué)得不可思議,。最了不起的是，它提供的內(nèi)容都是我自己挑選的,。正如我喜歡在Twitter上“發(fā)現(xiàn)”信息一樣,，我熱愛(ài)打理自己的花園，在院子里放滿我喜歡的內(nèi)容,。所以我的心情就跟Reddit網(wǎng)站上致力于改變這個(gè)決定的人們一樣,，也可以用Twitter的標(biāo)簽#拯救Google Reader,、或者網(wǎng)上流行的惡搞視頻《元首的憤怒》來(lái)形容（古老的人物因?yàn)檫@個(gè)古老的閱讀平臺(tái)而蘇醒），還像Change.org上的請(qǐng)?jiān)笗?shū)一樣：谷歌怎么可以一邊說(shuō)著“不作惡”,，一邊砍掉一個(gè)如此深受用戶喜愛(ài)的產(chǎn)品呢,？

????谷歌的解釋簡(jiǎn)明扼要：“有兩個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的原因：其一，Google Reader的使用量已減少,；其二,，作為一家公司，我們正在將所有的精力投入到更少的產(chǎn)品上,。我們認(rèn)為,，這樣的專注度能夠創(chuàng)造更好的用戶體驗(yàn)?！?/p>

????這兩點(diǎn)毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)是真的,，或者至少大約是真的。用戶使用率可能確實(shí)降低了,，但Reader的用戶群是一幫網(wǎng)絡(luò)達(dá)人：我們是網(wǎng)蟲(chóng)?。?/p>

????與谷歌看重的社交媒體業(yè)務(wù)Google+相比,，Reader帶來(lái)了更多的網(wǎng)站流量,。這很丟人，我這么說(shuō)并不是因?yàn)槲視?huì)非常懷念Google Reader,，而是因?yàn)樗_實(shí)是一個(gè)很出色的小型社交網(wǎng)絡(luò),。注意小型這個(gè)詞。盡管谷歌在2010年推出Google+時(shí)砍掉了大多數(shù)優(yōu)秀的分享功能,，Reader仍然是搜索新聞,、同時(shí)通過(guò)Twitter、Facebook甚至郵件傳播這些消息的最佳途徑之一,。

????羅伯?費(fèi)什曼全面分析了Reader這項(xiàng)服務(wù),，還總結(jié)了它在社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)中扮演的角色：“Facebook在保持平衡上做得很好，但是它過(guò)于偏向社交了,。它的網(wǎng)絡(luò)就像起伏不定的多頭水仙,，緊緊環(huán)繞著自身。Reader則以內(nèi)容為支點(diǎn),，破土而出,，同時(shí)擴(kuò)展到所有部分?！?/p>

????此言不虛,。

????Reader是一個(gè)平臺(tái)，幫助那些特定的信息狂人收集信息,，同時(shí)和其他狂人分享信息,。然而就因?yàn)闆](méi)有足夠多的網(wǎng)蟲(chóng)來(lái)凸顯Reader的價(jià)值,，谷歌就把它關(guān)了。好吧,。谷歌是一家巨型公司,，它當(dāng)然知道什么是更好的生財(cái)之道。

????我覺(jué)得,，這個(gè)變化凸顯了社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)一個(gè)更大的問(wèn)題,。那些巨頭（谷歌、Facebook）似乎不滿足于提供小型的精彩雜?！麄兿胍蔀楠?dú)霸天下的平臺(tái),，成為能長(zhǎng)出多頭水仙的軀干。

????但是當(dāng)我們包容萬(wàn)物時(shí),，為什么只能有一個(gè)社交網(wǎng)絡(luò),，一個(gè)平臺(tái)呢？（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

????They must have known in Mountain View that the biggest howl would come from the press—all us news junkies, crying over our loss. For five years going there has been nothing better than Google's stripped-down RSS reader for plowing through story after story with astonishing speed.

????And now, come July 1st, it will be no more.

????The amount of information I gather on Reader in one-minute spurts, sprinkled throughout my day, still feels incredible. And best of all: the feeds are my own selection. As much as I love "discovering" content on Twitter, I adored tending my own garden, filling platform with feeds specific to my tastes. So my sentiments match those the Reddit thread dedicated to the shutdown, or the Twitter hashtag #savegooglereader, or the Hitler video (an old meme resuscitated for an old platform), or the Change.org petition: How can Google say 'don't be evil' and then kill off a product so beloved?

????Google's explanation is terse: "There are two simple reasons for this: usage of Google Reader has declined, and as a company we're pouring all of our energy into fewer products. We think that kind of focus will make for a better user experience."

????Both points are no doubt true. Or true-ish. Usage may have declined in sheer number of users, but Readers are a powerful bunch: We are nerds!

????Reader drives more traffic to websites than Google+, the social-media project Google seems focused on. This is a shame, and I'm not just saying that because I will miss Google Reader terribly, but because Reader was a brilliant little social network. Emphasis on little. Even though Google took away most of the neat sharing functions in 2010, when it rolled out Google+, it still was one of the best ways to find stories and pass them on: on Twitter, Facebook, or even email.

????In a comprehensive look at the service, Rob Fishman summed it Reader's role in the social web thusly: "Facebook may well achieve an equilibrium, but it is social to a fault; the network, like a heaving, many-headed Narcissus, rallies mostly around itself. Reader pivoted on the fulcrum of content, unearthed and spread in equal parts."

????That's it exactly.

????Reader was a space for a very specific type of information junkie to gather and share other bits of information with other junkies/nerds. So Google is shutting Reader down because there weren't enough nerds to make it worthwhile. Fine. Google is a massive company and no doubt sees better ways to make money.

????To my mind this speaks to a larger problem on the social web. The titans (Google, Facebook) don't seem content building smaller, more precious sideshows—they want to be the platform, the body to the many-headed Narcissus.

????But why does there have to be just one social network, one platform, when we contain multitudes?