41–43 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how some people can produce walls of text attacking Google at the drop of a hat. If you've actually read that post you'd have noticed that the author is misrepresenting her assumptions as facts by repurposing out of context comments. The person she was quoting wasn't even speaking about Reader nor was he granting her an interview (the author doesn't specify in what context did she hear all that) it was jus…
Obviously I'm a Facebook shill.
RSS peaked in 2006 and has been dying since. I suspect it was from the rise of social networks. Though not a replacement feature-wise, social networks have been competing for time and attention from users since day 1, and RSS readers lost. Google Reader was too late to a declining trend, and it was just a matter of time before it was going to get killed off anyway. http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=rss#q=rss&cmp…
Meanwhile, in reality - RSS and XML are part of the internet fabric, invisible but essential to the function of numerous very high profile services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using Google Trends to try to divine how "alive" something is is fruitless, as the graphs you get are displaying the percentage of all internet searches that that use that term. Since the internet is constantly growing and new terms are being added all the time, it is impossible to say whether a declining graph on google trends means that absolute number of searches are going down or up.
Net new search terms aren't being added at the rate you think. Try searching for highly generic terms such as "food" or "blue" and it's pretty much flat. While many new terms are being added, old terms are getting obsoleted almost as fast. The point still stands: share of web interest in RSS has still been displaced by other ways of spending time. Whether it's social media, Netflix, or cat photos, RSS simply hasn't g…
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=food#q=porn&cmpt=q
(Also, who the hell would need to google for RSS?)