5 ms·

Let’s Say FeedBurner Shuts Down…

100 points by Idered 14y ago

jstalin 14y ago
This was my first thought as well when they announced the death of Reader. I don't see why they'd keep feedburner running. If they're going to kill it, they should just announce it now, rather than prolonging the pain.
- eli 14y ago
  Yup, last week I made sure all my sites were broadcasting a direct RSS URL. One would hope they would at least give plenty of warning before actually pulling the plug, but who knows.
snoonan 14y ago
The one wrinkle I can see is that a lot of podcasts (including my own) use Feedburner. While shutting down Reader directly affects the people who chose to use it, shutting down Feedburner would disrupt a millions of innocent users. The end user just sees a great podcast go offline and subsequent firestorm of blaming Google. They'd be shutting down the customers of their customers, which seems a little more evil.
- derefr 14y ago
  There's an underlying problem to that: RSS has no concept of a signal for "feed discontinued at this URL; use other located at <new URL>". At its simplest, this would just require RSS readers to understand 301 redirects and actually change their stored URL for the feed in response. (Well, that, and to not use feed URLs as primary keys, which I know some RSS clients are guilty of. ;)
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    301, you mean, but I'd be surprised if RSS readers don't honor 301s. The RSS feed is served over HTTP, so it's not the job of the feed to specify its location. That's what "Moved permanently" is for.
    - acdha 14y ago
      This is exactly what almost every reader on the planet does, thanks to discussion and evangelism 5+ years ago
      - derefr 14y ago
        Do they actually change what URL they have stored in their feed database, though? Or do they just follow the redirect each and every time they access the feed? It matters when the old server is eventually taken down. (Keeping in mind that while Cool URLs Don't Change, most servers and domains are managed by Uncool people.)
  - pjbrunet 14y ago
    You're assuming Google would reveal the source feed with a redirect. They could give us that information now, right in the feed, but they don't--I checked. So why would they change their policy after closing down the product?
jmilkbal 14y ago
They barely care about FeedBurner as it is. They've discontinued all of the advertising intergration, not updated the blog in any amount of time nor do you really get that much of the product itself. There's some pretty basic Google Analytics connection, but the main data we get out of it is download numbers for our podcast (http://76streetpod.com http://76streetpod.com) and podcast network (http://76streetnetwork.com http://76streetnetwork.com). It seems like every couple weeks the statistics stop for unexplained reasons only to have the Google group light up with nary an explanation. Along with mostly useless developer documentation for how the product outputs what it does or how it changes entries in a feed, FeedBurner is a useless hunk of crap that is almost certain to shutdown. An recent gripe is that when you use it as a feed proxy it doesn't pass along subscriber numbers like any other good feed parser, so a FeedBurner feed of a FeedBurner feed doesn't pass long info to the original FeedBurner feed or feed (but will pass along downloads, though it's only because FeedBurner is just a glorified Location header then.) I originally only went with FeedBurner over an open solution for expediency, but I've never liked giving Google more information on our users or giving up my control of our feeds to a product that has been limping along for years. It wouldn't take much effort to replicate FeedBurner. Maybe it's time I hunker down and do it. I've been planning for a FeedBurner switch since the beginning by using its "branded" feed feature and using a subdomain of ours for feed hosting. I hope everyone else has been wise enough to do so, as well, though looking at our network membership feeds, I know they haven't.
- eli 14y ago
  When they removed the ability to serve ads -- presumably the whole reason the service exists -- I knew its days were numbered. But honestly, I had assumed there would be tons (years) of notice before they unplugged anything. Now I'm not so sure about that.
- WalterGR 14y ago
  nor do you really get that much of the product itself. The RSS -> email list feature is nice. There are plenty of competitors out there, but I rather like having the trusted Google name on the signup confirmation page and on the individual emails, which are sent from Google servers.
felixthehat 14y ago
I'm not a feedburner user myself, but it looks like a lot of people use it just for stats - I wonder could google roll it into google analytics as an extra stream?
acdha 14y ago
There's a bigger problem: FeedBurner wraps URLs in the google feedproxy redirector. If they shut that down, a ton of old shared links will break.
- opminion 14y ago
  Like closing down a URL shortener.
  - acdha 14y ago
    Exactly: and one which many people assumed was a safe choice for the future given deep-pockets backing
  - ersii 14y ago
    Indeed and there's a lot of usage of URL Shorteners as well. That's why it's so important to save where they head to and/or not use a shortener. Some URL shorteners even change their short codes every now and then (ie they lead to new places). The ArchiveTeam have a URLTeam that's dedicated to unshortening URL shorteners and releases their data sets every now and then. Feel free to check out http://urlte.am/ http://urlte.am/ http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=URLTeam http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=URLTeam and/or stop by #urlteam on EFNet.
kefs 14y ago
An alternative.. http://uri.lv/ http://uri.lv/ w/ migration from feedburner.. http://uri.lv/feeds/migrate http://uri.lv/feeds/migrate
- eli 14y ago
  If you're worried about FeedBurner going away, I would think you'd be worried about this free service going away one day too.
  - maximevalette 14y ago
    We're adding a premium tier in a few days, with some nice premium features.
keesj 14y ago
Wouldn't it make more sense for Google to first shut down FeedBurner and then Google Reader? That way Google could ensure all FeedBurner subscriptions in Reader would be replaced A) with the location of the new feed provided by the site owner, or B) in case of no action from the site owner fall back to the original feed as known by FeedBurner. When they've done that, they can shutdown Google Reader and all the new RSS readers out there that let you import your Google Reader feeds would have the new updated non-FeedBurner feeds. I guess having a 301 redirect option in FeedBurner and advising other RSS readers to implement would work as well, but it seems more error prone than Google solving as much of this problem as possible themselves. With Google Reader they are/were in the ideal place to do so. I realize it requires some development costs, but it would be a nice gesture to their user base. Of course this is all hypothetical. We don't know what Google's plans are for FeedBurner. Perhaps the fact they shutdown Google Reader is an indication FeedBurner is here to stay for the time being as otherwise they would have taken the above approach.
- froo 14y ago
  > Wouldn't it make more sense for Google to first shut down FeedBurner and then Google Reader? Not particularly. As it stands now, FeedBurner feels more like a utility whereas Reader is a service.
nrlucas 14y ago
feedburner shuts down
Concours 14y ago
I believe Feedburner will ultimately shut down, the question isn't really IF it'll shut down BUT WHEN it'll shut down. We have a simple to use Feed Fetching API at https://www.feedsapi.org https://www.feedsapi.org with our extended documentation (in work) at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCL_W9XGnsa-EN8oAhNl8tOqEtP4u6UM5OiVi5D0pbs/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCL_W9XGnsa-EN8oAhNl8tOq... , it’s not a clone of the Google Reader API, but it’s really good for what it’s supposed to do.
geerlingguy 14y ago
If you're using FeedBurner and haven't already, consider enabling the MyBrand service. It's free, and gives you full control of the feed URL. I wrote instructions for doing so here: http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/using-feedburner-sake-control http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/using-feedb... [Edit: link]
pjbrunet 14y ago
Some thoughts: 1. I haven't looked but I bet there's already a WordPress plugin that counts feed download stats. Or just use tracking links (redirect with a counter) in your feed--lots of services (Budurl) do that if you're not a coder. 2. It's disgusting that Feedburner feeds do not anywhere reveal the original URL of the source material. I'm glad this is getting attention finally. 3. As a user, I don't want the middleman Feedburner between me and the source material. 80% of the time you can just add /feed/ to the blog's URL and WordPress will have the original feed there for you. Even if it's not advertised--it's still there :-)
est 14y ago
It's not only Feedburner what will be shut down, blogger will shutdown because G+ team already working on the alternative Introducing their own blogging platform: http://gplusproject.appspot.com/new-apps-iphone-android http://gplusproject.appspot.com/new-apps-iphone-android
MichaelApproved 14y ago
I doubt Feedburner will ever be shut down (by Google at least). The backlash that Google will suffer can not be worth the savings they will receive by shutting it down. It will remain a tax on a bad acquisition decision and it'll continue on with the bare minimum of maintenance. Maybe Google will "sell" the service to a lesser known company who will let the service die after a while. They could also spin it off with a seed fund of its own and allow it to die if it can't be profitable. This method might allow Google to get away with killing the service and take so much of the blame.
- ersii 14y ago
  If there's a lesson I've learned with Google: They don't sell their acquisitions. They've probably integrated too much stuff into what they originally acquired. Authentication, advertising platform, support (ha) flows and what not.
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    Good point. I was more cynical but maybe they could allow the acquiring company to integrate account data into their service rather than a transfer of software.
alenart 14y ago
Google Alerts + email filters = makeshift RSS reader. Now if Google cans Alerts I'll throw down.
dudus 14y ago
Google Reader was too much integrated into the Google brand and also had a very easy and clear migration path to other services. You like it or not it's expandable. Feedburner on the other hand would be harder to migrate. They might do the same as they did to SketchUp and just sell the service to someone that is interested in making a business out of it.

100 points by Idered 14y ago

This was my first thought as well when they announced the death of Reader. I don't see why they'd keep feedburner running. If they're going to kill it, they should just announce it now, rather than prolonging the pain.

eli 14y ago
Yup, last week I made sure all my sites were broadcasting a direct RSS URL. One would hope they would at least give plenty of warning before actually pulling the plug, but who knows.

snoonan 14y ago

The one wrinkle I can see is that a lot of podcasts (including my own) use Feedburner. While shutting down Reader directly affects the people who chose to use it, shutting down Feedburner would disrupt a millions of innocent users. The end user just sees a great podcast go offline and subsequent firestorm of blaming Google. They'd be shutting down the customers of their customers, which seems a little more evil.

derefr 14y ago
There's an underlying problem to that: RSS has no concept of a signal for "feed discontinued at this URL; use other located at <new URL>". At its simplest, this would just require RSS readers to understand 301 redirects and actually change their stored URL for the feed in response. (Well, that, and to not use feed URLs as primary keys, which I know some RSS clients are guilty of. ;)
- StavrosK 14y ago
  301, you mean, but I'd be surprised if RSS readers don't honor 301s. The RSS feed is served over HTTP, so it's not the job of the feed to specify its location. That's what "Moved permanently" is for.
  - acdha 14y ago
    This is exactly what almost every reader on the planet does, thanks to discussion and evangelism 5+ years ago
    - derefr 14y ago
      Do they actually change what URL they have stored in their feed database, though? Or do they just follow the redirect each and every time they access the feed? It matters when the old server is eventually taken down. (Keeping in mind that while Cool URLs Don't Change, most servers and domains are managed by Uncool people.)
- pjbrunet 14y ago
  You're assuming Google would reveal the source feed with a redirect. They could give us that information now, right in the feed, but they don't--I checked. So why would they change their policy after closing down the product?

jmilkbal 14y ago

They barely care about FeedBurner as it is. They've discontinued all of the advertising intergration, not updated the blog in any amount of time nor do you really get that much of the product itself. There's some pretty basic Google Analytics connection, but the main data we get out of it is download numbers for our podcast (http://76streetpod.com http://76streetpod.com) and podcast network (http://76streetnetwork.com http://76streetnetwork.com). It seems like every couple weeks the statistics stop for unexplained reasons only to have the Google group light up with nary an explanation. Along with mostly useless developer documentation for how the product outputs what it does or how it changes entries in a feed, FeedBurner is a useless hunk of crap that is almost certain to shutdown. An recent gripe is that when you use it as a feed proxy it doesn't pass along subscriber numbers like any other good feed parser, so a FeedBurner feed of a FeedBurner feed doesn't pass long info to the original FeedBurner feed or feed (but will pass along downloads, though it's only because FeedBurner is just a glorified Location header then.) I originally only went with FeedBurner over an open solution for expediency, but I've never liked giving Google more information on our users or giving up my control of our feeds to a product that has been limping along for years. It wouldn't take much effort to replicate FeedBurner. Maybe it's time I hunker down and do it. I've been planning for a FeedBurner switch since the beginning by using its "branded" feed feature and using a subdomain of ours for feed hosting. I hope everyone else has been wise enough to do so, as well, though looking at our network membership feeds, I know they haven't.

eli 14y ago
When they removed the ability to serve ads -- presumably the whole reason the service exists -- I knew its days were numbered. But honestly, I had assumed there would be tons (years) of notice before they unplugged anything. Now I'm not so sure about that.
WalterGR 14y ago
nor do you really get that much of the product itself. The RSS -> email list feature is nice. There are plenty of competitors out there, but I rather like having the trusted Google name on the signup confirmation page and on the individual emails, which are sent from Google servers.

felixthehat 14y ago

I'm not a feedburner user myself, but it looks like a lot of people use it just for stats - I wonder could google roll it into google analytics as an extra stream?

acdha 14y ago

There's a bigger problem: FeedBurner wraps URLs in the google feedproxy redirector. If they shut that down, a ton of old shared links will break.

opminion 14y ago
Like closing down a URL shortener.
- acdha 14y ago
  Exactly: and one which many people assumed was a safe choice for the future given deep-pockets backing
- ersii 14y ago
  Indeed and there's a lot of usage of URL Shorteners as well. That's why it's so important to save where they head to and/or not use a shortener. Some URL shorteners even change their short codes every now and then (ie they lead to new places). The ArchiveTeam have a URLTeam that's dedicated to unshortening URL shorteners and releases their data sets every now and then. Feel free to check out http://urlte.am/ http://urlte.am/ http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=URLTeam http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=URLTeam and/or stop by #urlteam on EFNet.

kefs 14y ago

An alternative.. http://uri.lv/ http://uri.lv/ w/ migration from feedburner.. http://uri.lv/feeds/migrate http://uri.lv/feeds/migrate

eli 14y ago
If you're worried about FeedBurner going away, I would think you'd be worried about this free service going away one day too.
- maximevalette 14y ago
  We're adding a premium tier in a few days, with some nice premium features.

keesj 14y ago

Wouldn't it make more sense for Google to first shut down FeedBurner and then Google Reader? That way Google could ensure all FeedBurner subscriptions in Reader would be replaced A) with the location of the new feed provided by the site owner, or B) in case of no action from the site owner fall back to the original feed as known by FeedBurner. When they've done that, they can shutdown Google Reader and all the new RSS readers out there that let you import your Google Reader feeds would have the new updated non-FeedBurner feeds. I guess having a 301 redirect option in FeedBurner and advising other RSS readers to implement would work as well, but it seems more error prone than Google solving as much of this problem as possible themselves. With Google Reader they are/were in the ideal place to do so. I realize it requires some development costs, but it would be a nice gesture to their user base. Of course this is all hypothetical. We don't know what Google's plans are for FeedBurner. Perhaps the fact they shutdown Google Reader is an indication FeedBurner is here to stay for the time being as otherwise they would have taken the above approach.

froo 14y ago
> Wouldn't it make more sense for Google to first shut down FeedBurner and then Google Reader? Not particularly. As it stands now, FeedBurner feels more like a utility whereas Reader is a service.

nrlucas 14y ago

feedburner shuts down

Concours 14y ago

I believe Feedburner will ultimately shut down, the question isn't really IF it'll shut down BUT WHEN it'll shut down. We have a simple to use Feed Fetching API at https://www.feedsapi.org https://www.feedsapi.org with our extended documentation (in work) at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCL_W9XGnsa-EN8oAhNl8tOqEtP4u6UM5OiVi5D0pbs/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCL_W9XGnsa-EN8oAhNl8tOq... , it’s not a clone of the Google Reader API, but it’s really good for what it’s supposed to do.

geerlingguy 14y ago

If you're using FeedBurner and haven't already, consider enabling the MyBrand service. It's free, and gives you full control of the feed URL. I wrote instructions for doing so here: http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/using-feedburner-sake-control http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff-geerling/using-feedb... [Edit: link]

pjbrunet 14y ago

Some thoughts: 1. I haven't looked but I bet there's already a WordPress plugin that counts feed download stats. Or just use tracking links (redirect with a counter) in your feed--lots of services (Budurl) do that if you're not a coder. 2. It's disgusting that Feedburner feeds do not anywhere reveal the original URL of the source material. I'm glad this is getting attention finally. 3. As a user, I don't want the middleman Feedburner between me and the source material. 80% of the time you can just add /feed/ to the blog's URL and WordPress will have the original feed there for you. Even if it's not advertised--it's still there :-)

est 14y ago

It's not only Feedburner what will be shut down, blogger will shutdown because G+ team already working on the alternative Introducing their own blogging platform: http://gplusproject.appspot.com/new-apps-iphone-android http://gplusproject.appspot.com/new-apps-iphone-android

MichaelApproved 14y ago

I doubt Feedburner will ever be shut down (by Google at least). The backlash that Google will suffer can not be worth the savings they will receive by shutting it down. It will remain a tax on a bad acquisition decision and it'll continue on with the bare minimum of maintenance. Maybe Google will "sell" the service to a lesser known company who will let the service die after a while. They could also spin it off with a seed fund of its own and allow it to die if it can't be profitable. This method might allow Google to get away with killing the service and take so much of the blame.

ersii 14y ago
If there's a lesson I've learned with Google: They don't sell their acquisitions. They've probably integrated too much stuff into what they originally acquired. Authentication, advertising platform, support (ha) flows and what not.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  Good point. I was more cynical but maybe they could allow the acquiring company to integrate account data into their service rather than a transfer of software.

alenart 14y ago

Google Alerts + email filters = makeshift RSS reader. Now if Google cans Alerts I'll throw down.

dudus 14y ago

Google Reader was too much integrated into the Google brand and also had a very easy and clear migration path to other services. You like it or not it's expandable. Feedburner on the other hand would be harder to migrate. They might do the same as they did to SketchUp and just sell the service to someone that is interested in making a business out of it.