4 ms·

The 1600+ people watching that bug, and the millions using reader are the minority. RSS is for hackers, and Google doesn't want to invest in those people. (Us

The 1600+ people watching that bug, and the millions using reader are the minority. RSS is for hackers, and Google doesn't want to invest in those people. (Us)

acdha 14y ago
That's like saying HTML is for hackers: ordinary users shouldn't need to look at the raw serialization format if the service is any good. The many not hackers I interacted with on the old reader appreciated the way they could keep track of interesting things even if they were only shallowly aware of how it worked.
- ruswick 14y ago
  Do you mean "the old Reader" or The Old Reader (http://theoldreader.com/ http://theoldreader.com/)?
  - acdha 14y ago
    the old Reader, although both are correct since they're admirably copying the 2011 Google high point.
sp332 14y ago
RSS isn't for hackers, it's for infovores. The same people who make the majority of pageviews on the internet, oh and also make most of the pages on the web. It's for a minority, but that minority is the very tip-top of the most hardcore users of the web. It's not going away.
- zanny 14y ago
  It is worth mentioning a large part of the reason RSS is so reclusive is that none of the browsers kept the "subscribe via RSS" button in the nav bar Firefox had 6 years ago. Back then it was one click to add feeds to the browser, and anyone could use it. Now you have to go out of your way looking for it.
  - clockwerx 14y ago
    I remember the FF bugs for removing it suggested only 7 percent of people used it. What frustrates me is that 7 percent x web scale is not a small figure; and many of those were curators - prepping info for others.
    - sp332 14y ago
      7 percent x web scale is not a small figure Not sure if they still do this, but Mozilla used to give new hires a little toy and say, "This is your million users; try not to abuse them too much." That concept is built-in to the culture there. Why take up space and memory for the 93% of users who don't use that feature, when an add-on can do just as good a job for the 7%?
    - tomkarlo 14y ago
      The road to UX hell is paved with minor feature requests.
kmfrk 14y ago
I'd say that the movement from print news to digital news and per-author and per-article consumption and the resulting "curation" craze means RSS is more relevant now, not less. It's just that companies like Facebook and Google are trying to lock in users on their own platforms. Makes you wonder what is ahead for Blogger. It will probably be assimilated eventually.
slig 14y ago
Exactly. Here on HN we can see people complaining about Chrome being bloated, slow and that they're considering moving back to Firefox as result. Since only a minority of Chrome users are RSS users, it makes sense to have it as an extension. They're not stopping anyone from building one. So, hack away.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  I love Firefox but I have hard time seeing in what universe Chrome is more bloated or slower than Firefox. Firefox is about on par with IE for start up speed at this point, I believe.
  - gkanai 14y ago
    Mozilla tracks JS speed at: http://arewefastyet.com/ http://arewefastyet.com/ Firefox is basically at par with Chrome. If your particular Firefox is slow, I suggest you reset your profile: http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix...
    - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
      You're talking about JS; I'm talking about it starting up.

The 1600+ people watching that bug, and the millions using reader are the minority. RSS is for hackers, and Google doesn't want to invest in those people. (Us)

acdha 14y ago

That's like saying HTML is for hackers: ordinary users shouldn't need to look at the raw serialization format if the service is any good. The many not hackers I interacted with on the old reader appreciated the way they could keep track of interesting things even if they were only shallowly aware of how it worked.

ruswick 14y ago
Do you mean "the old Reader" or The Old Reader (http://theoldreader.com/ http://theoldreader.com/)?
- acdha 14y ago
  the old Reader, although both are correct since they're admirably copying the 2011 Google high point.

sp332 14y ago

RSS isn't for hackers, it's for infovores. The same people who make the majority of pageviews on the internet, oh and also make most of the pages on the web. It's for a minority, but that minority is the very tip-top of the most hardcore users of the web. It's not going away.

zanny 14y ago
It is worth mentioning a large part of the reason RSS is so reclusive is that none of the browsers kept the "subscribe via RSS" button in the nav bar Firefox had 6 years ago. Back then it was one click to add feeds to the browser, and anyone could use it. Now you have to go out of your way looking for it.
- clockwerx 14y ago
  I remember the FF bugs for removing it suggested only 7 percent of people used it. What frustrates me is that 7 percent x web scale is not a small figure; and many of those were curators - prepping info for others.
  - sp332 14y ago
    7 percent x web scale is not a small figure Not sure if they still do this, but Mozilla used to give new hires a little toy and say, "This is your million users; try not to abuse them too much." That concept is built-in to the culture there. Why take up space and memory for the 93% of users who don't use that feature, when an add-on can do just as good a job for the 7%?
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    The road to UX hell is paved with minor feature requests.

kmfrk 14y ago

I'd say that the movement from print news to digital news and per-author and per-article consumption and the resulting "curation" craze means RSS is more relevant now, not less. It's just that companies like Facebook and Google are trying to lock in users on their own platforms. Makes you wonder what is ahead for Blogger. It will probably be assimilated eventually.

slig 14y ago

Exactly. Here on HN we can see people complaining about Chrome being bloated, slow and that they're considering moving back to Firefox as result. Since only a minority of Chrome users are RSS users, it makes sense to have it as an extension. They're not stopping anyone from building one. So, hack away.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago
I love Firefox but I have hard time seeing in what universe Chrome is more bloated or slower than Firefox. Firefox is about on par with IE for start up speed at this point, I believe.
- gkanai 14y ago
  Mozilla tracks JS speed at: http://arewefastyet.com/ http://arewefastyet.com/ Firefox is basically at par with Chrome. If your particular Firefox is slow, I suggest you reset your profile: http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix...
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    You're talking about JS; I'm talking about it starting up.