5 ms·

> Unfortunately Google Reader was the gateway into the RSS realm for those folks who just wanted a quick way to keep track of their news I confess: I literally

by weland 12y ago

> Unfortunately Google Reader was the gateway into the RSS realm for those folks who just wanted a quick way to keep track of their news I confess: I literally cannot understand this. There must be a thousand RSS readers, many of them allowing at least some privacy, some of them by e.g. not running on a remote server, which also means their existence and usefulness does not depend on someone always being kind enough not to pull the plug. What the bloody hell was so special about Google Reader?

nanofortnight 12y ago
Ease of use. Not everybody wants to setup an RSS reader (or knows what one is).
- weland 12y ago
  But setting up an RSS reader is no different from installing any application. For crying out loud, that means going to an app store for much of the RSS-reading Internet or clicking next, next and finish for the rest of it. I know I sound like an elitist schmuck when I say it, but I'm increasingly starting to think all this ease-of-use thing is getting a bit out of hand. If there are people are willing to sacrifice performance (Google Reader's UI was slower than Liferea's first versions, and that's something!), privacy and reliability (an installed RSS reader does always work, as opposed to a public, remote service, ran by an advertising company) just because clicking "Install" is hard for them, I honestly wish all these bad, evil companies they're outraged about mine the shit out of them, from their eye color to the size of their underwear. I get legitimate cases (e.g. you're behind company firewall and you're on your work computer so you can't install anything), but installing a program really shouldn't be a difficult task otherwise.
  - edanm 12y ago
    While I get the sentiment, I'm thankful that you don't run the world. Most computer users forget that they have years and years of experience with computers, because they actually played with computers for their own fun for years. So the things that seem drop-dead simple for them are drop-dead simple if you have years of experience. I'm certainly thankful my doctor has never told me "you know, if you can't be bothered to understand biology, I'll just let the diseases kill you", when he has 7+ years of knowledge that I don't.
    - lelandbatey 12y ago
      We're not committing our users to death. All we're asking is that they learn how to put on a bandaid.
      - marrs 12y ago
        I think this is a common attitude today in all walks of life. We seem to be incapable of thinking for ourselves now, whether when using a computer or crossing the street. I'm amazed that we're still allowed to drive cars.
        loup-vaillant 12y ago
        Don't worry, soon, we won't. Just wait for the statistics to show autonomous cars are safer, legislation will soon follow. Give it 20, 30 years tops.
    - weland 12y ago
      > Most computer users forget that they have years and years of experience with computers, because they actually played with computers for their own fun for years. The fact that pretty much any user who reads RSS feeds uses applications that do not come with the operating system by default is, I think, proof enough that installing an application is really not that difficult. Being one, I get why Slackware users have issues with that (hhehe) but we're really not talking about a complex maintenance issue here...
  - acheron 12y ago
    I don't want to use a standalone RSS reader any more than a standalone email client. There's a reason everybody [1] switched to webmail. In any case, a web RSS reader that I run myself (tt-rss or similar) is a pretty good compromise. [1] Yes, person who is about to reply, I know you personally didn't.
    - tbrownaw 12y ago
      There's a reason everybody [1] switched to webmail. No, "everybody" uses Outlook because corporate IT likes how all the microsoft stuff integrates with itself. Everybody also apparently uses their phones for email now, which I understand tends to use installed apps rather than the web browser. [1] Yes, person who is about to reply, I know you personally didn't. Right, ignore and marginalize all the people who have counterexamples to your claims.
      - zwieback 12y ago
        I actually use Outlook as an RSS reader. It's not very good but it works and that way everything is in one place. Also, I think Outlook is much better than any other mail/calendar client I've ever used. I read HN, Reuters, Re/Code, Atlantic and New Yorker in Outlook. I love the mostly text-only experience and am finding that I read content in a less prejudiced way when all the color distraction is gone.
    - weland 12y ago
      > I don't want to use a standalone RSS reader any more than a standalone email client. There's a reason everybody switched to webmail. I do use a standalone client. IMAP is nice enough with the messages and I don't mix my personal and work contacts, so the addressbooks are easy to sync. Unfortunately, save for Roundcube, which sucks in moderation, I'm not aware of any single webmail client that doesn't suck. The same goes for my RSS feeds, but I do have a setup that is probably hard to replicate for someone who doesn't work with computers for a living, so that doesn't count in the argument :-). P.S.: I actually use webmail for work account because IT hates me. It's not too bothersome. The only thing stopping me from migrating my personal accounts to their respective webmail interfaces is not being able to import my abook contacts :-).
- amirmc 12y ago
  Also, sync. Reading from multiple devices is frustrating if the read/favourite history isn't carried over.
  - Maakuth 12y ago
    This, very much. I often read my feeds while commuting, walking, waiting, etc. with a phone or a tablet. Then I read with one PC or another. If the reads wouldn't be synced, a lot of time would be spent just skipping the posts I've already seen.
  - weland 12y ago
    Ah, yes, this is nice indeed.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Plus Google Reader had some pretty magic features like adding an RSS feed and getting years of history because it already knew about it.
  - caoilte 12y ago
    One of the biggest features still missing from my chosen replacement (feedly).
acdha 12y ago
Features, performance and, later, social network. I used standalone readers but they were poorly suited for casual use – fire it up, wait minutes for every feed to be checked, etc. – and they require a lot of local storage + CPU to do things like store history, determine whether an item has substantially changed or had only cosmetic corrections, etc. Reader used Google's infrastructure so it was always running and your feeds were up to date when you opened them (unlike most desktop readers, they also adjusted the schedule automatically so frequently updated feeds were polled more frequently), and they stored everything with first-class search for history, which also came in handy if a popular site was overloaded since the cached feed content could still be viewed. Finally, the real jump in usage happened when they enabled social features. Being able to see who else had publicly shared or commented on an item was a great way to find people with similar interests and there were many great conversations to be found. See http://www.buzzfeed.com/robf4/googles-lost-social-network http://www.buzzfeed.com/robf4/googles-lost-social-network for a rundown of just how popular Reader's social features were. I believe a key reason why Google+ never went anywhere was because Google actively killed the Reader network and a large percentage of early adopters, journalists, writers, etc. got the message that you should never invest more than transient time in a Google product.
- leephillips 12y ago
  "frequently updated feeds were polled more frequently" Even better, they supported pubsubhubbub, and were a very early adopter. I think even now, most readers don't support this - it's one of the reasons I settled on Newsblur as a replacement. When I tested with my own feeds, I saw new items appear within seconds of publishing them.
  - acdha 12y ago
    Good point - update latency was definitely a large part of why I chose Newsblur.
- pron 12y ago
  For me it was the ability to search all my subscriptions' history from the beginning of time. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I think that with the impending Google+ restructuring, we might see Google Reader resurrected.
ebiester 12y ago
I start reading my RSS feed in the morning sometimes on a tablet. On the bus in the morning, I switch to my phone. Sometimes, when I want to read something in more depth or send to a colleague at work, I open it up on my work computer. Then, at home at night, it's back to the tablet or my laptop. The operating systems involved include iOS, Windows, and Linux. Which standalone RSS feed will allow me to keep track of what I've read on all places?
- jamesgeck0 12y ago
  You might look at Fever[1] ($30) or Tiny Tiny RSS[2] (free). I seem to remember hearing about a few others back when Google Reader went down, but I don't recall their names. 1. http://www.feedafever.com/ http://www.feedafever.com/ 2. http://tt-rss.org/redmine/projects/tt-rss/wiki http://tt-rss.org/redmine/projects/tt-rss/wiki

by weland 12y ago

nanofortnight 12y ago

Ease of use. Not everybody wants to setup an RSS reader (or knows what one is).

weland 12y ago
But setting up an RSS reader is no different from installing any application. For crying out loud, that means going to an app store for much of the RSS-reading Internet or clicking next, next and finish for the rest of it. I know I sound like an elitist schmuck when I say it, but I'm increasingly starting to think all this ease-of-use thing is getting a bit out of hand. If there are people are willing to sacrifice performance (Google Reader's UI was slower than Liferea's first versions, and that's something!), privacy and reliability (an installed RSS reader does always work, as opposed to a public, remote service, ran by an advertising company) just because clicking "Install" is hard for them, I honestly wish all these bad, evil companies they're outraged about mine the shit out of them, from their eye color to the size of their underwear. I get legitimate cases (e.g. you're behind company firewall and you're on your work computer so you can't install anything), but installing a program really shouldn't be a difficult task otherwise.
- edanm 12y ago
  While I get the sentiment, I'm thankful that you don't run the world. Most computer users forget that they have years and years of experience with computers, because they actually played with computers for their own fun for years. So the things that seem drop-dead simple for them are drop-dead simple if you have years of experience. I'm certainly thankful my doctor has never told me "you know, if you can't be bothered to understand biology, I'll just let the diseases kill you", when he has 7+ years of knowledge that I don't.
  - lelandbatey 12y ago
    We're not committing our users to death. All we're asking is that they learn how to put on a bandaid.
    - marrs 12y ago
      I think this is a common attitude today in all walks of life. We seem to be incapable of thinking for ourselves now, whether when using a computer or crossing the street. I'm amazed that we're still allowed to drive cars.
      - loup-vaillant 12y ago
        Don't worry, soon, we won't. Just wait for the statistics to show autonomous cars are safer, legislation will soon follow. Give it 20, 30 years tops.
  - weland 12y ago
    > Most computer users forget that they have years and years of experience with computers, because they actually played with computers for their own fun for years. The fact that pretty much any user who reads RSS feeds uses applications that do not come with the operating system by default is, I think, proof enough that installing an application is really not that difficult. Being one, I get why Slackware users have issues with that (hhehe) but we're really not talking about a complex maintenance issue here...
- acheron 12y ago
  I don't want to use a standalone RSS reader any more than a standalone email client. There's a reason everybody [1] switched to webmail. In any case, a web RSS reader that I run myself (tt-rss or similar) is a pretty good compromise. [1] Yes, person who is about to reply, I know you personally didn't.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    There's a reason everybody [1] switched to webmail. No, "everybody" uses Outlook because corporate IT likes how all the microsoft stuff integrates with itself. Everybody also apparently uses their phones for email now, which I understand tends to use installed apps rather than the web browser. [1] Yes, person who is about to reply, I know you personally didn't. Right, ignore and marginalize all the people who have counterexamples to your claims.
    - zwieback 12y ago
      I actually use Outlook as an RSS reader. It's not very good but it works and that way everything is in one place. Also, I think Outlook is much better than any other mail/calendar client I've ever used. I read HN, Reuters, Re/Code, Atlantic and New Yorker in Outlook. I love the mostly text-only experience and am finding that I read content in a less prejudiced way when all the color distraction is gone.
  - weland 12y ago
    > I don't want to use a standalone RSS reader any more than a standalone email client. There's a reason everybody switched to webmail. I do use a standalone client. IMAP is nice enough with the messages and I don't mix my personal and work contacts, so the addressbooks are easy to sync. Unfortunately, save for Roundcube, which sucks in moderation, I'm not aware of any single webmail client that doesn't suck. The same goes for my RSS feeds, but I do have a setup that is probably hard to replicate for someone who doesn't work with computers for a living, so that doesn't count in the argument :-). P.S.: I actually use webmail for work account because IT hates me. It's not too bothersome. The only thing stopping me from migrating my personal accounts to their respective webmail interfaces is not being able to import my abook contacts :-).
amirmc 12y ago
Also, sync. Reading from multiple devices is frustrating if the read/favourite history isn't carried over.
- Maakuth 12y ago
  This, very much. I often read my feeds while commuting, walking, waiting, etc. with a phone or a tablet. Then I read with one PC or another. If the reads wouldn't be synced, a lot of time would be spent just skipping the posts I've already seen.
- weland 12y ago
  Ah, yes, this is nice indeed.
Dylan16807 12y ago
Plus Google Reader had some pretty magic features like adding an RSS feed and getting years of history because it already knew about it.
- caoilte 12y ago
  One of the biggest features still missing from my chosen replacement (feedly).

acdha 12y ago

Features, performance and, later, social network. I used standalone readers but they were poorly suited for casual use – fire it up, wait minutes for every feed to be checked, etc. – and they require a lot of local storage + CPU to do things like store history, determine whether an item has substantially changed or had only cosmetic corrections, etc. Reader used Google's infrastructure so it was always running and your feeds were up to date when you opened them (unlike most desktop readers, they also adjusted the schedule automatically so frequently updated feeds were polled more frequently), and they stored everything with first-class search for history, which also came in handy if a popular site was overloaded since the cached feed content could still be viewed. Finally, the real jump in usage happened when they enabled social features. Being able to see who else had publicly shared or commented on an item was a great way to find people with similar interests and there were many great conversations to be found. See http://www.buzzfeed.com/robf4/googles-lost-social-network http://www.buzzfeed.com/robf4/googles-lost-social-network for a rundown of just how popular Reader's social features were. I believe a key reason why Google+ never went anywhere was because Google actively killed the Reader network and a large percentage of early adopters, journalists, writers, etc. got the message that you should never invest more than transient time in a Google product.

leephillips 12y ago
"frequently updated feeds were polled more frequently" Even better, they supported pubsubhubbub, and were a very early adopter. I think even now, most readers don't support this - it's one of the reasons I settled on Newsblur as a replacement. When I tested with my own feeds, I saw new items appear within seconds of publishing them.
- acdha 12y ago
  Good point - update latency was definitely a large part of why I chose Newsblur.
pron 12y ago
For me it was the ability to search all my subscriptions' history from the beginning of time. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I think that with the impending Google+ restructuring, we might see Google Reader resurrected.

ebiester 12y ago

I start reading my RSS feed in the morning sometimes on a tablet. On the bus in the morning, I switch to my phone. Sometimes, when I want to read something in more depth or send to a colleague at work, I open it up on my work computer. Then, at home at night, it's back to the tablet or my laptop. The operating systems involved include iOS, Windows, and Linux. Which standalone RSS feed will allow me to keep track of what I've read on all places?

jamesgeck0 12y ago
You might look at Fever[1] ($30) or Tiny Tiny RSS[2] (free). I seem to remember hearing about a few others back when Google Reader went down, but I don't recall their names. 1. http://www.feedafever.com/ http://www.feedafever.com/ 2. http://tt-rss.org/redmine/projects/tt-rss/wiki http://tt-rss.org/redmine/projects/tt-rss/wiki