I used Google Reader and I still use Feedly on a daily basis and I have no trouble saying unequivocally that this is a trash article not worth posting.
It’s just bringing up a bunch of unrelated decisions, mostly made over 10 years ago, strung together to try and make it seem like Google is EEEing RSS, when the reality is that the various people who have made decisions across the different divisions of Google are all just unintentionally deprioeitizimg RSS because the alternatives have more sticking power.
“deprioritizing” does not explain all of the mentioned decisions. Plus there are still many cases for which there are no alternatives that work similarly. The article is factual and google has plenty of incentive to kill open standards like rss
“deprioritizing” does not explain all of the mentioned decisions.
Which ones doesn’t it?
Plus there are still many cases for which there are no alternatives that work similarly.
Yeah, they’re not making decisions on what best suits the end user, they’re making decisions based on what makes them the most money.
The article is factual
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yeah google didnt help of course, but the internet as a whole pivoted from RSS. It still very much exists today and you have user friendly easy ones like feedly still out there in spite of the pivot, but the inability of RSS to go mainstream is more the result of how social media and apps dominate the modern web
Feedly picked up where reader left off and is now way better than reader ever was.
