Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

danielmiessler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 376 posts

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#151

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

worble wrote: post #80
DevX101 wrote: post #53

RSS is dying (or dead) because it was incompatible with the dominant business model on the internet -- advertising. This is why Google killed it. This is why lots of professional publishers hated it. With HTTP you'd be able to earn money via embedded ads but you'd earn exactly $0 via RSS since the feed was stripped of ads, just content. This forced publishers to put useless blurbs, redirecting to the HTTP version, wh…

> This forced publishers to put useless blurbs, redirecting to the HTTP version, which was a bad user experience and just sucked. Is this that bad? I personally don't mind this at all, I subscribe to RSS feeds so I can easily tell at a glance who has an update in one place. If they then want to redirect me for the full content, then so be it, especially if the alternative is me loading every single one of those sites…

I do mind such RSS feeds that just try to force people to load the webpage. With the vast majority of my RSS feeds, I never have to leave Emacs’ Elfeed RSS reader to consume daily news. If a feed won't let me see the full content in RSS, then I am more likely to delete the feed than become a pair of eyeballs for the website’s advertisers.

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#152

Post by naniwaduni »

Closi wrote: post #126
tifadg1 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats neither factually nor theoretically correct, as all the EU laws apply until the transition period has expired, which I wouldn't be surprised will be extended given corona has taken so much focus and time away from it.

It's both factually and theoretically correct - the UK has left the EU, but laws are extended until the transition period is over. Note the absence of the UK in the below sources: https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_U...

It is theoretically correct. The factuality is the point under dispute...

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#153

Post by BrunoBernardino »

drdeadringer wrote: post #139

I remember that brief time when free email addresses were being offered up before RSS was created. You could get daily news emailed to your inbox from such as USA Today, Wired, and so forth. An electronic newspaper tossed at your digital front door every morning. I actually looked forward to it. Then RSS was invented. Now RSS is supposed to be dead, and/or killed, what appears to be several times over. I never did ge…

I felt very similarly.

If you’re interested in getting “the news” delivered to you daily, instead of having to check a reader app, I’ve built something that aggregates all your feeds (and websites without feeds) into a daily digest via email.

I don’t want to “spam” so I won’t link here, but you can check on my submissions for “News, calm”.

On the “RSS apocalypse” front, I can say that on this product I noticed that most websites “non-tech people” follow don’t offer RSS feeds, apparently over monetization concerns.

I was definitely in a filter bubble as everything I followed had RSS.

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#154

Post by slightwinder »

zelly wrote: post #73
DevX101 wrote: post #53

RSS is dying (or dead) because it was incompatible with the dominant business model on the internet -- advertising. This is why Google killed it. This is why lots of professional publishers hated it. With HTTP you'd be able to earn money via embedded ads but you'd earn exactly $0 via RSS since the feed was stripped of ads, just content. This forced publishers to put useless blurbs, redirecting to the HTTP version, wh…

Micropayments have been tried. They all failed. The fair market price for content is $0. What is happening is that the only publishers that will exist shall be only those who create it for free. There is simply a glut of content out there because the barrier to creating content is completely gone.

> Micropayments have been tried. They all failed. The fair market price for content is $0.

To be fair, most were aweful and never reached critical mass. And many were to early and badly placed. Today situation is different. Patreon, twitch, youtube, netflix, spotify and all the other paid services proof that people are willing to pay something for content, to their conditions.

I think a well implemented micro-payment could work out today well enough to be viable. Something build into the browsers and aggregator-sites (reddit, hackernews, google news, facebook...) first. Most users don't wanna waste their time with micromanaging their bills, so make it optional, and automate it for the rest of the time.

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#156

Post by tuukkah »

catacombs wrote: post #147
Zaskoda wrote: post #46

I would like to take one comment in this post to recognize Aaron Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

What's his connection to RSS?

From the link: "At age 14, he became a member of the working group that authored the RSS 1.0 web syndication specification."

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#157

Post by slightwinder »

bastawhiz wrote: post #88
DevX101 wrote: post #53

RSS is dying (or dead) because it was incompatible with the dominant business model on the internet -- advertising. This is why Google killed it. This is why lots of professional publishers hated it. With HTTP you'd be able to earn money via embedded ads but you'd earn exactly $0 via RSS since the feed was stripped of ads, just content. This forced publishers to put useless blurbs, redirecting to the HTTP version, wh…

> This is why Google killed it. Is this true? It certainly doesn't feel like it. Reader was a first party branded reader. Google could put ads on Reader relevant to your interests (which they'd have been more keenly aware of than if you weren't using Reader), and they didn't have to pay out the publishers. Google killed Reader, I think, for the second reason you mentioned: publishers were neutering their feeds. Reade…

Google never made an public attempt to show ads in their Reader, unlike GMail. Publisher feeds were also still prospering and widely used when Google killed the reader. It all started to die fast in years after.

Also, IIRC they specifically killed it because of Google Plus, which according to their plans should replace Google Reader and the demand for RSS.

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#158

Post by SXX »

gsich wrote: post #149
yawn wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your other choice without lots of friction is Google, an advertising company. I hate that this is the world we live in.

At least with Android (not Google) I have a choice on what software I install. Besides that you can still use a desktop PC. Most people do anyway.

> At least with Android (not Google) I have a choice on what software I install.

I'm have very negative outlook on Apple with their vendor lock-in and walled garden, but how long do you think Google will let you make this choice if they gonna have no competition at all?

Google was slowly making Android less and less open with every release. Now "security" features like SafetyNet decide whatever you're allowed to use software or not.

Think on it! Just look at what Google doing with web because of their monopoly on search and browser markets.

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#159

Post by _samjarman »

For me, I joined twitter, followed all the authors I loved, and then my RSS reader became redundant. It wasn't deliberate, it wasn't terribly conscious. I got the same content, a whole lot more personality, and even some interactions and discussions with the author and other readers.

Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS

#160

Post by carapace »

DevX101 wrote: post #53

RSS is dying (or dead) because it was incompatible with the dominant business model on the internet -- advertising. This is why Google killed it. This is why lots of professional publishers hated it. With HTTP you'd be able to earn money via embedded ads but you'd earn exactly $0 via RSS since the feed was stripped of ads, just content. This forced publishers to put useless blurbs, redirecting to the HTTP version, wh…

I think you gotta connect the dots with UBI here. You wouldn't have to monetize if you didn't have to monetize.
Post reply on HN