3 ms·
Reader did have social features which differentiated it from other feed aggregators. The power was in the network effect; if your friends used Reader then you w
by tantalor 7y ago
Reader did have social features which differentiated it from other feed aggregators. The power was in the network effect; if your friends used Reader then you would use it too. Without the social features it was not that great; just another aggregator.
To some extent Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. have replaced this need, but with a lot of other noise.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoWithout the social features it was great, because it aggregated your feeds without needing to run on your machine. (It also stored the entire history of the feed without taking up storage on your machine.) I used to use Thunderbird for RSS feeds. That failed one day while I was on vacation -- the PC shut down for whatever reason -- losing track of what had happened while I was away. Not a huge deal, sure, but Reader was a huge improvement because it couldn't fail like that. It tracked everything and knew what was new and what was old with no chance of slipping. (It also let you read blogs that were blocked by the Great Firewall, back before google itself was blocked.) Lacking a free online RSS reader, I use Thunderbird again now, but Reader was better.
- nirui 7y agoAbout social features, wouldn't that be great if RSS itself can allow more interaction? For example: Allowing reader to post/view comment and "likes" directly on their RSS reader? Read-only publishing system is less attractive than interactive ones, people love to talk about stuff.