The truth is this: Google destroyed the RSS feed reader ecosystem with a subsidized product, stifling its competitors and killing innovation. It then neglected Google Reader itself for years, after it had effectively become the only player. Today it does further damage by buggering up the already beleaguered links between publishers and readers. It would have been better for the Internet if Reader had never been at all.

I think the conversation here is what free does to ecosystems. When businesses as big as google offer free services, they are killing the value of said services. When the value of a service is perceived to be 0, it effectively puts everyone out of business who has to make money from a similar service. Then, because a big company is making no money from the service and every company eventually starts looking for ways to improve bottom-line, they cut the service because it is nothing but a cost.

I think we see this with the tablet market, even though tablets are being sold and not given away for free, they are being sold at a loss to gain market share. Eventually that devalues the market for tablets and nobody wins. The tablet makers who have the market share eventually get tired of selling at a loss and stop innovating and the tablet makers making money will get out of the business because they can't compete. Of course Apple is more than likely the anomaly in this situation.

Content providers on the internet already went through this. They have now seen giving content away for free has devalued the content and trying to charge after the fact remains difficult to say the least.

In my humble opinion I would like to see businesses compete on innovation instead of price (or lack of price). In this case, everyone wins. The best services, products and content survive and the companies that are producing them will be around for a long time because they are making profits. Everybody wins. Good for the customer, good for the business.