4 ms·

> One's need for "informational pull" remains It clearly doesn't - since so few people are using RSS.

cgriswald 5y ago
I don't think that follows. People need proper nutrition, but they can get by for an unreasonable time on sugar cereal and microwavable Salisbury steaks. The prevalence of cheap, nutrient poor meals is not an indication that people's need for nutrition doesn't remain. It's only an indication that suppliers would rather make a cheap, highly profitable good with marketing to convince people it fills a need than to go the less profitable route of actually providing for that need.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  If there was such limited market demand for RSS when it was available that almost everyone's dropped it, then maybe it's not a solution that people actually need or want. I get that people think it's a great idea, but in practice it seems not to be.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    That's a big if. I'm not convinced suppliers genuinely attempted to provide useful RSS feeds. Even during the hay day of RSS, many feeds were simply stubs meant to get me to their website—even for websites to which I was already paying for the content. Regardless, demand for a particular solution is much different than demand to meet a particular need. To suggest RSS is 'obsolete' suggests its been obviated by a technology which meets the same need. I don't see that as being the case. It is far more likely to me that RSS doesn't meet the needs of the supply side. Solutions can also be dropped for lack of profitability or other supply side concerns even where demand for that particular solution is high. You can see this in action today. Ask yourself why Spotify doesn't support RSS for its podcasts despite it being extremely popular for fetching podcasts.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Well, what it really comes down to is that there are 24 hours in a day and you can only look at one thing at a time. If you're reading or watching video, you're either using RSS, or using Facebook or using twitter or tiktok or YouTube or whatever. If your screen time is already dedicated to doomscrolling your Facebook feed, it's not that there was a limited market for RSS, its that there's a limited market for content in general, and people moved to where the dopamine pathways get stimulated the most.
mdp2021 5y ago
What people "need", in the sense I used the term, and what people /want/, are not the same thing, Chris. And what people /do/ is a third thing, because it takes knowledge and notion of an option to take it. Product optimality and market offer, "efficient" and "available", "need" and "want", do not overlap. People do not "need" palm assistants that work as mirrors (glossy displays): they buy them. One can eat mud for ignorance or for lack of alternatives. Average Joe, Median Jack, Typical Maude and Random Randall are frequently laymen (layconsumers).

I don't think that follows. People need proper nutrition, but they can get by for an unreasonable time on sugar cereal and microwavable Salisbury steaks. The prevalence of cheap, nutrient poor meals is not an indication that people's need for nutrition doesn't remain. It's only an indication that suppliers would rather make a cheap, highly profitable good with marketing to convince people it fills a need than to go the less profitable route of actually providing for that need.

chrisseaton 5y ago
If there was such limited market demand for RSS when it was available that almost everyone's dropped it, then maybe it's not a solution that people actually need or want. I get that people think it's a great idea, but in practice it seems not to be.
- cgriswald 5y ago
  That's a big if. I'm not convinced suppliers genuinely attempted to provide useful RSS feeds. Even during the hay day of RSS, many feeds were simply stubs meant to get me to their website—even for websites to which I was already paying for the content. Regardless, demand for a particular solution is much different than demand to meet a particular need. To suggest RSS is 'obsolete' suggests its been obviated by a technology which meets the same need. I don't see that as being the case. It is far more likely to me that RSS doesn't meet the needs of the supply side. Solutions can also be dropped for lack of profitability or other supply side concerns even where demand for that particular solution is high. You can see this in action today. Ask yourself why Spotify doesn't support RSS for its podcasts despite it being extremely popular for fetching podcasts.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Well, what it really comes down to is that there are 24 hours in a day and you can only look at one thing at a time. If you're reading or watching video, you're either using RSS, or using Facebook or using twitter or tiktok or YouTube or whatever. If your screen time is already dedicated to doomscrolling your Facebook feed, it's not that there was a limited market for RSS, its that there's a limited market for content in general, and people moved to where the dopamine pathways get stimulated the most.

mdp2021 5y ago

What people "need", in the sense I used the term, and what people /want/, are not the same thing, Chris. And what people /do/ is a third thing, because it takes knowledge and notion of an option to take it. Product optimality and market offer, "efficient" and "available", "need" and "want", do not overlap. People do not "need" palm assistants that work as mirrors (glossy displays): they buy them. One can eat mud for ignorance or for lack of alternatives. Average Joe, Median Jack, Typical Maude and Random Randall are frequently laymen (layconsumers).