4 ms·
? if you give something away that a loss because it actually costs money to produce/provide, like Google did with the Reader service - it doesn't fit the defin
by pinaceae 14y ago
? if you give something away that a loss because it actually costs money to produce/provide, like Google did with the Reader service - it doesn't fit the definition?
what a crazy piece of logic.
google destroyed the market for smaller RSS-app vendors by providing a service for free, at a loss. was it on purpose? or just stupidity? what exactly does it change? the ecosystem around RSS has been ruined, maybe beyond repair.
because open and don't be evil and blah.
- angryasian 14y agoare you new to HN ? the last few days listed 10+ alternatives. Google allowed you to export your feeds that could be imported to any one of the alternatives offered. So whats the issue ?
- king_jester 14y ago> google destroyed the market for smaller RSS-app vendors by providing a service for free, at a loss. was it on purpose? or just stupidity? what exactly does it change? the ecosystem around RSS has been ruined, maybe beyond repair. This is surely a joke, because the last time I checked software of my choosing can pluck RSS feeds and serve me content, whether it be a web, desktop, or mobile app. While the current quality of RSS apps can be argued, RSS is in no way near dead.
- pbreit 14y agoThe marginal cost to deliver a web service like Google Reader is near zero (which actually begs for it to be priced near zero). Every feed reader I have ever used has been free. The vast majority of Google's services are free.