4 ms·

I don’t see how removing support for rss infringes on this statement. You can still install a plug-in to shape your own experience. In fact, it could be argued

I don’t see how removing support for rss infringes on this statement. You can still install a plug-in to shape your own experience. In fact, it could be argued that including their own rss support when most users don’t even know what RSS is was itself infringing on that statement.

apostacy 8y ago
How could including support for a technology possibly harm users? What is with this obsession with scrubbing any features that are not "popular" enough? This mindset comes from for-profit companies. It makes sense for them to obsess about metrics and engagement. But what are you losing by challenging users and making something good? So much amazing and important software has poor engagement with uneducated users, but it would be considered worthless garbage because it isn't popular with users who don't care in the first place.
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  All code has a cost, and all code needs to be maintained. It is not as simple as you might think to just leave something in.
  - naravara 8y ago
    Not only this, but having a default and free option built in disincentivizes the kind of experimentation and creative destruction that could develop the platform. Especially if the technology itself isn’t a priority for making the browser. This is basically how Google hobbled RSS and why it’s on life support today. Reader was great and free. It got cannibalized for their erstwhile social networking bid and the entire ecosystem nearly died when it went away because it had the market cornered.
    - yawaramin 8y ago
      Wait, what? You're comparing FF's bare-bones live feeds feature to Google Reader? They are night and day. Live bookamrks were meant to be a bare minimum, a starting point for users to get a feel for RSS. No one in their right mind would say they were discouraging competition and experimentation. As evidence: all the great RSS readers (NetNewsWire, Reader, Feedly, etc.) were created while live bookmarks still existed.
  - apostacy 8y ago
    I do not believe that it is too expensive to Mozilla to support RSS. If you had to quantify the cost in a dollar amount, it would probably be far less than the money that they spend on single one of their promotional events.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
If they had promoted and made a feature of explaining RSS instead of downplaying and hiding it. They could have promoted it and put RSS feeds on new tabs instead of advertising and what's popular on Pocket. Most users don't know what RSS is until it is explained to them. Most users don't know what pocket and a whole bunch of other things are either until some explanation is given.
- paulryanrogers 8y ago
  Taken to the extreme this strategy means an ever increasing mountain of things to explain to people. Or things they are expected to learn to become 'literate'. That said I do find open, broadly supported standards liberating, but I'm a developer. And at times even I give up in favor of simpler, inferior solutions.
  - onli 8y ago
    But it is not about taking it to an extreme. RSS is one old and popular technology (it is far from dead, see how many people use feedly and other feedreaders) that fits perfectly to the mission of Mozilla. To support it properly not much is needed: 1. Show an icon when the current site supports RSS feeds. 2. Make that icon a button that leads to the rendered RSS feed. 3. Have a way there to subscribe to the feed. Live bookmarks were a strange feature, I'm not saying they are the perfect solution to handle point three. It could be something like the reader selection list of https://www.subtome.com/ https://www.subtome.com/ > And at times even I give up in favor of simpler, inferior solutions. RSS is already the most simple solution for its problem.
    - paulryanrogers 8y ago
      Personally I think browsers would be better if they made it easy to get subscriptions into feed-focused tools or services _in a standardized way_. Because browsers are originally intended for browsing and not consuming or producing feeds. (They could expand into such a role, but the reader Ff had didn't aggregate feeds well.)
  - 8y ago

apostacy 8y ago

How could including support for a technology possibly harm users? What is with this obsession with scrubbing any features that are not "popular" enough? This mindset comes from for-profit companies. It makes sense for them to obsess about metrics and engagement. But what are you losing by challenging users and making something good? So much amazing and important software has poor engagement with uneducated users, but it would be considered worthless garbage because it isn't popular with users who don't care in the first place.

Baeocystin 8y ago
All code has a cost, and all code needs to be maintained. It is not as simple as you might think to just leave something in.
- naravara 8y ago
  Not only this, but having a default and free option built in disincentivizes the kind of experimentation and creative destruction that could develop the platform. Especially if the technology itself isn’t a priority for making the browser. This is basically how Google hobbled RSS and why it’s on life support today. Reader was great and free. It got cannibalized for their erstwhile social networking bid and the entire ecosystem nearly died when it went away because it had the market cornered.
  - yawaramin 8y ago
    Wait, what? You're comparing FF's bare-bones live feeds feature to Google Reader? They are night and day. Live bookamrks were meant to be a bare minimum, a starting point for users to get a feel for RSS. No one in their right mind would say they were discouraging competition and experimentation. As evidence: all the great RSS readers (NetNewsWire, Reader, Feedly, etc.) were created while live bookmarks still existed.
- apostacy 8y ago
  I do not believe that it is too expensive to Mozilla to support RSS. If you had to quantify the cost in a dollar amount, it would probably be far less than the money that they spend on single one of their promotional events.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

If they had promoted and made a feature of explaining RSS instead of downplaying and hiding it. They could have promoted it and put RSS feeds on new tabs instead of advertising and what's popular on Pocket. Most users don't know what RSS is until it is explained to them. Most users don't know what pocket and a whole bunch of other things are either until some explanation is given.

paulryanrogers 8y ago
Taken to the extreme this strategy means an ever increasing mountain of things to explain to people. Or things they are expected to learn to become 'literate'. That said I do find open, broadly supported standards liberating, but I'm a developer. And at times even I give up in favor of simpler, inferior solutions.
- onli 8y ago
  But it is not about taking it to an extreme. RSS is one old and popular technology (it is far from dead, see how many people use feedly and other feedreaders) that fits perfectly to the mission of Mozilla. To support it properly not much is needed: 1. Show an icon when the current site supports RSS feeds. 2. Make that icon a button that leads to the rendered RSS feed. 3. Have a way there to subscribe to the feed. Live bookmarks were a strange feature, I'm not saying they are the perfect solution to handle point three. It could be something like the reader selection list of https://www.subtome.com/ https://www.subtome.com/ > And at times even I give up in favor of simpler, inferior solutions. RSS is already the most simple solution for its problem.
  - paulryanrogers 8y ago
    Personally I think browsers would be better if they made it easy to get subscriptions into feed-focused tools or services _in a standardized way_. Because browsers are originally intended for browsing and not consuming or producing feeds. (They could expand into such a role, but the reader Ff had didn't aggregate feeds well.)
- 8y ago