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

How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

openrss.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 265 posts

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#161

Post by ethagnawl »

bakemawaytoys wrote: post #7

Google’s obviously fake excuse for killing their RSS reader (declining usage) was especially maddening at the time because they were pushing Google+ - which _nobody_ used.

Well, everybody _did_ use Google+ but nobody _wanted to_. I remember constantly finding myself redirected to it and them doing shady things like automatically connecting you with everyone in your gmail contact list. Also, if memory serves, they chose an avatar for me using Picasa or photos in my gmail or something and it was a photo of me without a shirt on.

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#162

Post by docjay »

jfengel wrote: post #93
throwaway63467 wrote: post #48

The Internet in the early 2000s felt a little more special as compared to today, when 99.999 % of content is locked in a handful of walled gardens. I mean sure everything we had then is still possible but let’s be honest everything about the web is fine tuned to deliver ads to our eyeballs, browsers, operating systems and even protocols are being designed with ad delivery in mind. Even the privacy friendly browsers j…

There was also .001% of the content there is now. The Internet of 2000 was microscopic. Now everyone can create content, without any of the friction of hosting it. The vast majority of it is crap, but that was always the case. The main difference between now and 30 years ago is that the Internet is vastly more diverse. It isn't just other CS majors any more. Now everyone gets to wade in the vast crap pool looking for…

It sounds like you agreed with them from the other direction. “The internet of yesteryear felt more special.” - “Nah, there wasn’t as much slop back then and now it’s a crap pool that anyone can wade into and look for scraps.”

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#164

Post by paradox460 »

drnick1 wrote: post #81
throwaway63467 wrote: post #48

The Internet in the early 2000s felt a little more special as compared to today, when 99.999 % of content is locked in a handful of walled gardens. I mean sure everything we had then is still possible but let’s be honest everything about the web is fine tuned to deliver ads to our eyeballs, browsers, operating systems and even protocols are being designed with ad delivery in mind. Even the privacy friendly browsers j…

> everything about the web is fine tuned to deliver ads to our eyeballs, browsers, operating systems and even protocols are being designed with ad delivery in mind. I use Firefox with uBlock Origin on Linux, and haven't seen an ad in years. It's not like ads weren't a thing 20 years ago. Pop-up windows were particularly bad. Javascript, in particular, has been constantly abused against the user ever since it was crea…

Funny, I literally just saw an ad for Firefox

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#165

Post by anonymousiam »

cwnyth wrote: post #123
mschild wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox with uBlock Origin on Linux Same setup and same experience. I've recently joined another company which only provided chrome with no extensions by default. I know the web is filled with ads but I'm shocked again and again when I get a glimpse into what it's like without an adblocker.

There are dozens of us. Maybe one day people will realize how much better Firefox is now and how nicer the web can be with no ads.

It's not just a better user experience. It also addresses the security issues.

Blocking ads will also prevent malware scripts, unscrupulous information collection, and deceptive virus infection messages. I've got friends who've been infected because they believed the popup that told them their computer had a virus, and they needed to click the link to remove it.

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#166

Post by cmrdporcupine »

jeffbee wrote: post #119
deepsun wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with Google Music, it was perfect. You could stream, or could buy and download mp3, or you could upload your library to it. And the best feature: "I am feeling lucky" -- play a random song you ever liked and keep playing a generated playlist off it. But they killed it due to internal wars with YouTube Music that sucks. There's still nothing like Google Music.

> "I am feeling lucky" YouTube Music still has this feature and it even uses the die icon, just like always. > you could upload your library to it. You can also do this in YouTube Music. > But they killed it They rebranded the exact same code base with largely the same staff. I don't know why you perceive this to have been a break.

> They rebranded the exact same code base with largely the same staff. I don't know why you perceive this to have been a break.

This is actually completely false. (Source: I worked at Google at the time this transition was made, though not on GPM or YTM).

Two completely different codebases and teams and in fact YTM launched missing a boatload of features that Play Music had. Including annoyingly the ability to use our own Chromecast features on the desktop/browser version. (I worked on the Cast team). There were quite a few angry internal buganizer tickets.

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#167

Post by JKCalhoun »

jfengel wrote: post #93
throwaway63467 wrote: post #48

The Internet in the early 2000s felt a little more special as compared to today, when 99.999 % of content is locked in a handful of walled gardens. I mean sure everything we had then is still possible but let’s be honest everything about the web is fine tuned to deliver ads to our eyeballs, browsers, operating systems and even protocols are being designed with ad delivery in mind. Even the privacy friendly browsers j…

There was also .001% of the content there is now. The Internet of 2000 was microscopic. Now everyone can create content, without any of the friction of hosting it. The vast majority of it is crap, but that was always the case. The main difference between now and 30 years ago is that the Internet is vastly more diverse. It isn't just other CS majors any more. Now everyone gets to wade in the vast crap pool looking for…

Yeah, that was fine. It meant I got out riding my bike more often.

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#169

Post by pwdisswordfishq »

UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote: post #146
inigyou wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The .001% was the top .001% of today's content. The other 99.999% we gained was spam aimed at getting money while providing minimal value and taking minimal effort.

can’t wait to hear about how some 9/11 truther blog was the cream of the crop. I’m surprised you can see anything through those rose coloured glasses. the most charitable interpretation is that the internet used to more exclusively cater to your interests specifically, which i’m sure is true. try asking most women about the internet then vs now. there are still scumbags, and one could reasonably argue that they’ve go…

> can’t wait to hear about how some 9/11 truther blog was the cream of the crop

Compared to the torrent of AI slop today, it was.

Re: How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

#170

Post by TiredOfLife »

orzi wrote: post #68

Don't forget Mozilla removing Live Bookmarks (RSS feeds showed up directly in your bookmarks menu) and RSS feed subscriptions in Firefox 64. https://www.gijsk.com/blog/2018/10/firefox-removes-core-prod...

Somebody used Live Bookmarks?
Post reply on HN