4 ms·

Why not Google? Google failed to gain traction in the social network space with G+. If you can't beat them commoditize them! Why not make interoperable networ

Why not Google? Google failed to gain traction in the social network space with G+. If you can't beat them commoditize them! Why not make interoperable networks based on open standards first class citizens in chrome/chromium? Not just by adding support but also by helping move the RSS standard forward.

dvtrn 8y ago
They had their chance. And we're still mourning the loss of Reader to this day.
FennNaten 8y ago
Google used to own the most used RSS feed subscription service. They shut it down. So, not Google.
layoutIfNeeded 8y ago
Good idea! Maybe one day Google will create an ecosystem around RSS. They could call it something like “Google Reader”...
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  TheOldReader is a really nice RSS reader built after the demise of Google Reader. They've been consistently solid. https://theoldreader.com https://theoldreader.com
  - TheMiller 8y ago
    I second the recommendation for TheOldReader. It's where I eventually ended up after Google Reader's demise.
  - rsscircus 8y ago
    There's plenty of really good solutions around : 1. Online: Inoreader, Feedly, Newsblur Newsbin, The Old Reader, Feeder... 2. Browser extension: the great Feedbro 3. Desktop: Liferea (Linux), QuiteRSS (Windows), Caffeinated, Readki, Reeder (MacOS) For RSSOwl and RSS Bandit (Windows), there's nothing new for years/ The great FeedDemon (Windows) stopped it's dev years ago. 3. Self-hosted: Tiny Tiny RSS, Fever, Leed, Selfoss
dkarras 8y ago
RSS is anti-ads. If people don't leave their reader, they don't visit websites, don't load ads, don't ping tracking services. So any alternative to RSS, content creators relying on ads will fight tooth and nail to not make it mainstream ever.
- thekyle 8y ago
  That said, Google did produce a version of AdSense specifically for RSS feeds (although it was discontinued in 2012). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSense#Feeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSense#Feeds
- PurpleRamen 8y ago
  Mails are also ad-free, and they have no problem showing them in gmail. Same would be possible for newsfeeds. Actually, it would be even simpler, as they know the urls and could link this directly with ads shown in web search or on the specific pages. Though, majority of people using RSS are technical competent people, using adblockers, so likely it would be just pointless.
  - dkarras 8y ago
    Yes but with mails, you read... mails. That is what you consume. With readers, you consume content that is most probably there because of potential ad revenue. Yes, RSS is generally used by technical people - but you'd be surprised how many technical people don't use adblocks, sometimes because they don't care and sometimes because they don't think it is ethical to do so. And there always is the possibility that it can evolve into something that is more convenient used by masses. So it is a net negative in terms of revenue. And I'm not only talking about people that produce readers, but also about content creators. I'm making a site and hoping to turn a profit through ads and my interesting content - why would I want to provide a convenient stripped down version of my website for you to consume - something that is a net negative for my revenue (hosting and transferring data costs money)? Sure, I can provide "excerpts" in RSS, but I'd rather prefer you go to my homepage to see what is new - it is thoroughly AB tested to lure you in, spend some time and see some ads - maybe click one.

dvtrn 8y ago

They had their chance. And we're still mourning the loss of Reader to this day.

FennNaten 8y ago

Google used to own the most used RSS feed subscription service. They shut it down. So, not Google.

layoutIfNeeded 8y ago

Good idea! Maybe one day Google will create an ecosystem around RSS. They could call it something like “Google Reader”...

cannonedhamster 8y ago
TheOldReader is a really nice RSS reader built after the demise of Google Reader. They've been consistently solid. https://theoldreader.com https://theoldreader.com
- TheMiller 8y ago
  I second the recommendation for TheOldReader. It's where I eventually ended up after Google Reader's demise.
- rsscircus 8y ago
  There's plenty of really good solutions around : 1. Online: Inoreader, Feedly, Newsblur Newsbin, The Old Reader, Feeder... 2. Browser extension: the great Feedbro 3. Desktop: Liferea (Linux), QuiteRSS (Windows), Caffeinated, Readki, Reeder (MacOS) For RSSOwl and RSS Bandit (Windows), there's nothing new for years/ The great FeedDemon (Windows) stopped it's dev years ago. 3. Self-hosted: Tiny Tiny RSS, Fever, Leed, Selfoss

dkarras 8y ago

RSS is anti-ads. If people don't leave their reader, they don't visit websites, don't load ads, don't ping tracking services. So any alternative to RSS, content creators relying on ads will fight tooth and nail to not make it mainstream ever.

thekyle 8y ago
That said, Google did produce a version of AdSense specifically for RSS feeds (although it was discontinued in 2012). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSense#Feeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSense#Feeds
PurpleRamen 8y ago
Mails are also ad-free, and they have no problem showing them in gmail. Same would be possible for newsfeeds. Actually, it would be even simpler, as they know the urls and could link this directly with ads shown in web search or on the specific pages. Though, majority of people using RSS are technical competent people, using adblockers, so likely it would be just pointless.
- dkarras 8y ago
  Yes but with mails, you read... mails. That is what you consume. With readers, you consume content that is most probably there because of potential ad revenue. Yes, RSS is generally used by technical people - but you'd be surprised how many technical people don't use adblocks, sometimes because they don't care and sometimes because they don't think it is ethical to do so. And there always is the possibility that it can evolve into something that is more convenient used by masses. So it is a net negative in terms of revenue. And I'm not only talking about people that produce readers, but also about content creators. I'm making a site and hoping to turn a profit through ads and my interesting content - why would I want to provide a convenient stripped down version of my website for you to consume - something that is a net negative for my revenue (hosting and transferring data costs money)? Sure, I can provide "excerpts" in RSS, but I'd rather prefer you go to my homepage to see what is new - it is thoroughly AB tested to lure you in, spend some time and see some ads - maybe click one.