527
How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (openrss.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I used Google Reader and I still use Feedly on a daily basis and I have no trouble saying unequivocally that this is a trash article not worth posting.

It's just bringing up a bunch of unrelated decisions, mostly made over 10 years ago, strung together to try and make it seem like Google is EEEing RSS, when the reality is that the various people who have made decisions across the different divisions of Google are all just unintentionally deprioeitizimg RSS because the alternatives have more sticking power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah google didnt help of course, but the internet as a whole pivoted from RSS. It still very much exists today and you have user friendly easy ones like feedly still out there in spite of the pivot, but the inability of RSS to go mainstream is more the result of how social media and apps dominate the modern web

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    For many people, they essentially replaced or supplemented their RSS feeds with Reddit and now Lemmy. RSS nailed the technical challenge of publishing news sources, but people often don't just want to read the news, they want to talk about it and critique it etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    "deprioritizing" does not explain all of the mentioned decisions. Plus there are still many cases for which there are no alternatives that work similarly. The article is factual and google has plenty of incentive to kill open standards like rss

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    “deprioritizing” does not explain all of the mentioned decisions.

    Which ones doesn't it?

    Plus there are still many cases for which there are no alternatives that work similarly.

    Yeah, they're not making decisions on what best suits the end user, they're making decisions based on what makes them the most money.

    The article is factual

    "I declare FACTUALNESS"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •