Greader
GEEK ALERT: This post is very, very geeky. Non-geeks should probably give it a miss.
I started using Google Reader about a month ago. I was using Sage before that, which is a more lightweight reader, an extension for Firefox, and while it was fine while I used it, I gave Google's offering a try and now there's no going back.
For a start, it looks and operates in a very similar way to Gmail, with an AJAX-ey interface which updates in realtime, so I never have to hit that "refresh" button to see who's posted something new. It's got a lovely "mark all as read" button too, which is nice for when a news blog has posted a hundred things since I checked and I couldn't be bothered reading them all.
You can "star" posts you want to check back on, similar to the "starred" mails thingy in Gmail, which is great. You can also share posts publicly, and very easily, by clicking the "share" button (my shared feeds are here, just in case you want to have a look). There's a function to enable a del.icio.us-like "linkroll" too, but I'm very happy with the one I have now, so for the moment I won't be using that. Still, very cool.
One other very, very cool thing is that if you put the feed for a podcast into the reader, when you look at the resulting feed it looks like this:
That's right, a little Google Video-like streaming widget, and a link to the original mp3 as well. Brilliant. A similar thing happens with Videocasts like ZeFrank, but you don't get the streaming thing, just a link to the source, which is in a larger format than the one he posts on his site, which is nice.
So there you have it. I thoroughly recommend Google Reader for all your feed-management needs, and seeing as it's part of "Google Labs", and therefore experimental (not even "Beta" yet), it can only get much, much better. Give it a go.
(posts)
4.21-en
Geek Support, fixing of bugger-ups, moral support, code splicing, tech. administration, whining, über-nerdery and fetching of fluffy coffees by 
Comments
What the hell are you talking about?
Posted by: Destructor | January 8, 2007 12:54 PM
Geeky stuff. Never mind. Go back to writing your friggin' book!
Posted by: Matt | January 8, 2007 1:08 PM
Yawn.
Posted by: NKL | January 8, 2007 5:03 PM
Tsk... some of us have been using it for a whole year, you know. But it is a bit moody and temperamental - for example, does not like Dragon's blog, or Diamond Geezer, or Everything is Electric, or various others..
Posted by: annie | January 8, 2007 6:51 PM
Oh lord. I have turned into a geek.
Posted by: annie | January 8, 2007 6:51 PM
Meh. When google can integrate their feed reader over their different spaces I'll be impressed.
Till then I'll use Newsgator's product line. Got Mac App for home. Win App for work. Mobile App for on the move and online page for when out.
And they all sync perfectly. It's great. And a offline app beats an online app anyday.
Posted by: Adrian | January 8, 2007 7:15 PM
When's the last time you were offline, Adrian? Besides, I can check Google Reader from my mobile as well, works a treat, really good. I know you've got a hard-on for Newsgator, but that's been around for years, and Google reader's still in the experimental stage, and it's already brilliant.
But tell me what you mean by "When Google can integrate their feed reader over their different spaces I'll be impressed."?
Annie, you are a geek, you know. And Dragon's blog goes into my Greader just fine?
Posted by: Matt | January 8, 2007 10:12 PM
Nikki, my sentiments exactly - YAWN!!!!
Posted by: Babs | January 9, 2007 8:45 AM
Google reader has been around for ages. And it started off shit. It's been improved but it was a craphole of a product to begin with.
In google you have feeds in your home page, feeds in your gmail, feeds in your reader and feeds somewhere else. You have to enter all those feeds separately. Google needs to learn to integrate better. There are getting their on some products but not all.
And it's not about being offline, it's that an REAL application beats a web app any day. Functionality. Speed. Load times.
I boot up NetNewsWire, and by the time I have finished reading an unread post everything else has downloaded to the app, and i can flip between posts search posts and flag posts far quicker than any online app. Zero wait time. Plus a whole raft of better functionality because whilst online applications have their place, they don't have the same architecture base as offline applications. For very good technical reasons.
The future is not online applications as everyone thinks, but a seamless integration between offline and online applications.
You try reading your feeds on a plane or a tube? I can do that with both my phone (java app) and my laptop. You can't if you need a connection.
Google Reader might be a good online reader.
So is Newsgator Online. At worst they are comparable. At best Newsgator is better.
But Newsgator online syncs with my offline apps. GReader doesn't. Newsgator wins.
Story. End of.
Posted by: Adrian | January 9, 2007 12:10 PM
Anyway, last I heard, it was still forbidden to use your phone on a plane.
Posted by: Dragon | January 9, 2007 12:57 PM
I think Adrian may be using the "flight mode" on his phone, D.
Oh, and resolutely NOT "Story. End of.", NetNewsWire costs actual MONEY, Google Reader is FREE, therefore (in my book) Google Reader is already "better", functionality or no. You can totally have your Google reader feeds on your Google homepage, and in Gmail as well.
Within a few months to a year, you will be able to use your phone and get wi-fi access on a plane, and probably on the tube as well. Shortly after that (a year or two at most?), most of the Developed World will be covered in blanket Wi-Fi access, so unless you see the need for a feedreader you can use wile snowboarding down Kilimanjaro in a blizzard, online will work fine.
To be continued...
Posted by: Matt | January 9, 2007 1:44 PM
Not so much in planes actually, but often in airports with £20 for 10 mins acess wifi rates.
Few months or years is not now. And even when wifi is pervasive, an offline application that works with online content will still out perform any browser.
Free can be great. But Free doesn't necessarily beat paid. P pay for lots of software, because it's quality and better than the free stuff.
Free may suit your purpose, but functionally the software web app, free or otherwise doesn't have the range of options or functionality that a full application has.
Free means free. Not better or worse.
Posted by: Adrian | January 9, 2007 2:34 PM
When Wi-Fi is pervasive, and download and browser speeds are pretty much instant (not very far off at all), there won't be any difference between offline and online applications. And Google will lead the market in this regard, I have no doubts.
Free beats paid, inho, by virtue of the fact that it is free. I don't pay for software. If I need software to do something, I will find a free version.
Free suits my purpose(s) just fine. I read my feeds at work, or at home. Occasionally, when in an airport or something, I will read them on my phone. Google Reader is 100% perfect for my needs, and has all the functionality I want. Paying for Newsgator would be, for me, a complete waste of money.
Posted by: Matt | January 9, 2007 2:57 PM
WiFi pervasive and browser speeds instant? Have you travelled recently. Even dublin airport cost me ?3 and wouldn't fucking work.
Speeds instant? Ever been to SA? Or on a shitty GPRS connection.
Even if both were true an application will still have more ability because it is an application and not a collection of javascript through another application or web browser. Online apps have many advantages, but feature parity is not one of them. Wont be. Ever. Because thats not the strenghts they compete with.
When NETWORK (not browser, note the difference) speeds are both fast and pervasive what you will find is not that Web Apps take over, but that offline apps become online enabled in ways that kill pure online apps.
Microsoft actually has the ability to do this far better than Google. Although they might blow it. Don't discount Apple as a dark horse either, or new developers.
Actually Apple is a good example. iTunes is an OFFLINE app that is network enabled (CDDB info, album artwork and Music Store). Think you could do this with just a pure web app? Maybe. But it would suck bricks.
Free is just free. Somethings that are free are good, and some a great. And some suck bricks. The fact it's free is not material. Using Google for free would cost me time and thats not free.
Free does not beat paid by virtue of it being free any more than a free Ford beats a paid for Ferrari on speed. You can't comapre feature sets and functionality and say the free one is better because it's free.
I don't dispute it suits your needs, and thats fine. But it's not faster or has the features I need because it's free. It's merely free.
Not to mention nothing is free. Free always costs. Someone, somewhere. Google shareholders are paying for your free on the basis you will generate further growth for them later on.
Posted by: Adrian | January 9, 2007 11:06 PM
"WiFi pervasive and browser speeds instant? Have you travelled recently. Even dublin airport cost me ?3 and wouldn't fucking work. Speeds instant? Ever been to SA? Or on a shitty GPRS connection."
I was talking in the FUTURE TENSE. I thought you would've got that from the "When" qualifier at the start of the sentence.
"Online apps have many advantages, but feature parity is not one of them. Wont be. Ever."
Never say never. Never means never. In a hundred years, maybe everything will be online, and the very idea of an offline application will be absolute nonsense. Or, at the rate technology has moved in the last 15-20 years, that could be 15-20 years from now. Who knows? Not me. And not you, either.
"Free does not beat paid by virtue of it being free any more than a free Ford beats a paid for Ferrari on speed."
I would much rather have a free Ford than to pay ?150,000 on a Ferrari, even if it doesn't go as fast. Free beer tastes better than beer you pay for, even if it's Stella.
"Google shareholders are paying for your free on the basis you will generate further growth for them later on."
Point. But I'm not a Google shareholder, and therefore for me, it's free. Whether it's really free or not is academic. I don't pay for it, so it's free.
I went from Sage to Google Reader, which was a pretty big leap from a semi-offline app to a wholly online one, and the move has been nothing if not brilliant, easy and interesting. Maybe someday my needs will develop to requiring more from a feed-reader, but somehow I doubt it. And between now and then, who knows what products and services will be released (for free!) by Google, and others, that could kick both Google and Newsgators collective asses.
Posted by: Matt | January 10, 2007 12:13 AM
Posted by: Dragon | January 10, 2007 9:42 AM
Could somebody please answer my question?
Posted by: Destructor | January 10, 2007 9:59 AM
Destructor, the answer to your question lies here. And also here.
Posted by: Matt | January 10, 2007 10:40 AM
I was talking in the FUTURE TENSE. I thought you would've got that from the "When" qualifier at the start of the sentence.
You qualified it with "not very far off at all" to which I would say "actually going to take quite a while, especially out of UK/USA"
Never say never. Never means never. In a hundred years, maybe everything will be online, and the very idea of an offline application will be absolute nonsense. Or, at the rate technology has moved in the last 15-20 years, that could be 15-20 years from now. Who knows? Not me. And not you, either.
You're quite right. But we are talking about the foreseeable future, of say the next 10-20 years.
i couldn't give a flying stuff what happens in a 100 years because I'll be dead. Don't be a pedant.
And you will still get offline applications, as opposed to web applications that work through a browser. However you may get very few applications that don't have network connectivity. This is what I said in the last comment. That applications through browsers will not rule the roost but network enabled applications. Architectures will change, but if you think the entire world will run through a browser based application ...
A web browser is not an OS.
I would much rather have a free Ford than to pay ?150,000 on a Ferrari, even if it doesn't go as fast. Free beer tastes better than beer you pay for, even if it's Stella.may prefer a free ford than a Ferrari. This is not the same as faster. Saying what you like or what is suitable for you is not the same as saying what has the greater set of attributes.
Point. But I'm not a Google shareholder, and therefore for me, it's free. Whether it's really free or not is academic. I don't pay for it, so it's free.
Actually it's not all that academic.
And between now and then, who knows what products and services will be released (for free!) by Google, and others, that could kick both Google and Newsgators collective asses.
Or what paid for services by NG or ANOTher could kick both of their asses.
What makes a product good is weather its good or not.
So the iPhone may or may not beat the free phone you get now. Not because of cost but because of what it does.
Posted by: Adrian | January 10, 2007 12:32 PM
"i couldn't give a flying stuff what happens in a 100 years because I'll be dead. Don't be a pedant." Err... Pot. Kettle. Black?
Please take the time to read a comment twice before you reply, I was talking about the foreseeable future too, I said 100 years first, then followed up with "at the rate technology has moved in the last 15-20 years, that could be 15-20 years from now." See? You're trying to argue with me when, from what you say, you actually agree with me.
"You may prefer a free ford than a Ferrari. This is not the same as faster."
I never said that it was the same as faster. I said I would prefer it, because it was free. And if I prefer it, that means that in my opinion, it's better. "Story. End of" as you might say.
"Actually it's not all that academic."
Well, I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but I think it is. By your reasoning, the word "free" is meaningless, because no matter what's free, somebody or something is going to pay for it.
"What makes a product good is weather its good or not."
This is true. Google Reader is good, therefore it's good. You may prefer something that iyho is better, but that doesn't stop GR from still being good.
Posted by: Matt | January 10, 2007 1:36 PM
Why don't you just read websites like regular people?
Posted by: Destructor | January 11, 2007 11:55 AM
Because it takes too long! It's easier to use a system that tells you when your favourite websites have updated, and holds all the posts from those websites in a consistent layout and makes them easy to read.
That way you don't have to browse to every single site every day to see if anything new is up, you're notified instantly when new stuff goes up, how many new posts there are, etc, all in one convenient place.
Give it a go, for one week, and I guarantee you won't go back.
Besides, I don't want to be a regular person! :-P
Posted by: Matt | January 11, 2007 12:08 PM
I quite like to trundle around lots of different sites, appreciating the work that went into them and reading them the way most authors intended. On occasions I like it that I don't know whether there will be a new comment or even a new post.
I may switch over to some kind of feed reading gizmo at some point - it would on occasion be handy to be prompted that there's a new post before I get around to going there - but I'm happy as I am.
Posted by: QE | January 11, 2007 1:57 PM
Make no mistake, I still visit the blogs "in person", so to speak, when a post interests me, or to see what the comments are. But these days I read so many blogs and sites that to do that with all of them would eat of all the spare time I have.
It's just a more efficient way of reading.
Posted by: Matt | January 11, 2007 2:26 PM
But these days I read so many blogs and sites that to do that with all of them would eat of all the spare time I have.
Blogs are, by definition, for people who have too much free time. Time-maximization on displacement activities seems the very definition of oxymoron to me. If you're that strapped for time that you have to install a program to read your blogs for you, surely a more time-saving solution would be to stop reading blogs?
Posted by: Destructor | January 12, 2007 4:03 PM
Give it a go, for one week, and I guarantee you won't go back.
Okay, I just gave it a go for five seconds. Subscribed to Sev.com. It looked shit. Gave up.
Posted by: Destructor | January 12, 2007 4:10 PM
"surely a more time-saving solution would be to stop reading blogs?"
Well, yeah. But I like reading blogs. And it doesn't read the blogs for me, it just makes it quicker and easier to keep up with everything I want to read. And I didn't install a program either, or didn't you read the lengthy debate between me and Adrian above?
"Subscribed to Sev.com. It looked shit. Gave up."
Sev.com looks shit anyway. :-P (joke!)
Posted by: Matt | January 12, 2007 4:23 PM
Thought you might enjoy this video of ZeFrank's Running Fool's Seattle visit:
http://peoplegeek.wordpress.com/2007/01/13/running-fool-in-seattle-part-one-meet-the-fans/
Posted by: Heather Flanagan | January 13, 2007 8:02 AM
Dan, the main usefulness of a FeedReader is it tells you when a site has been updated.
Posted by: Adrian | January 13, 2007 3:49 PM
Blogrolling already does that.
Posted by: Destructor | January 18, 2007 9:36 AM
True, but it doesn't do it half as well as your average feedreader. Or even a quarter as well, in fact.
Put it this way. You know your podcast? In your latest one on your blog you wrote "iTunes is great, too, because it's downloading my show, right now". Well, iTunes is a feedreader, one that reads podcasts. And in your words, it's great.
So are all the other feedreaders that are half decent. They download blog posts, all by themselves, so you can read them easier.
Posted by: Matt | January 18, 2007 11:31 AM