Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Many commenters argue that Google’s decisions around products like Reader, Feedburner, Chrome and Google Groups accelerated the decline of RSS, both by outcompeting independent readers and then withdrawing support once the ecosystem had consolidated around its services. Others counter that RSS was always niche, poorly explained to mainstream users, and ultimately outcompeted by ad-driven, algorithmic feeds on social networks and platforms that offered clearer monetization. Despite this, a sizable minority still rely on RSS via self‑hosted tools and paid services, seeing it as a key open standard for following trusted sources without intermediaries or engagement-optimized feeds.

Role of Google Reader and Google’s Motives

  • Many see Google Reader’s shutdown as a pivotal blow to RSS and a turning point in Google’s trustworthiness.
  • Some frame it as classic “embrace, extend, extinguish”: Reader outcompeted other readers, centralized usage, then was killed.
  • Others argue Google genuinely tried to back RSS (Reader, Feedburner, browser integration), but usage was too niche to justify ongoing infra, migration work, and headcount under Google’s incentives.
  • An ex-insider describes structural disincentives to maintenance work and top‑down decisions favoring new, monetizable products (e.g., Google+).
  • Counterpoint: RSS is an open protocol; if its ecosystem can be crippled by one company leaving, it was fragile already.

Advertising, Monetization, and Business Models

  • RSS is perceived as cutting out intermediaries and weakening ad-driven, engagement-optimized feeds.
  • Publishers can and do monetize via partial feeds or embedded ads, but many users dislike teaser‑only feeds.
  • Several commenters think limited monetization and the rise of social media feeds (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) were more decisive than Google’s actions.
  • Some note parallels with podcasts (also RSS-based) where monetization shifted to baked‑in ads and siloed platforms like Spotify.

UX, Browsers, and Mainstream Adoption

  • Poor UX is cited as a major barrier: cryptic orange icons, raw XML views, and lack of explanation.
  • Older browsers (Firefox, Safari, Opera, Outlook, etc.) once had built‑in readers and nicer feed rendering; Chrome notably did not, which some think hurt adoption.
  • A former Chrome designer says usage of built‑in RSS was extremely low; philosophy was minimal UI plus extensions, not pushing niche features.
  • Others argue that if major browsers had polished, first‑class RSS UX (“Subscribe” instead of “RSS”), it might have gone mainstream.

Alternatives, Self‑Hosting, and Current Use

  • Many participants still rely heavily on RSS, often via self‑hosted or paid services (FreshRSS, Miniflux, NewsBlur, Feedly, Feedbin, Tiny Tiny RSS, etc.).
  • Discovery remains a pain point; people mention directories, social discovery via OPML sharing, and new ranking/discovery tools.
  • Some see renewed interest in curated, chronological feeds as algorithmic, ad‑heavy “enshittified” platforms worsen.
  • ActivityPub and JSONFeed are discussed but not seen as clear successors; RSS is viewed as “good enough” and still widely present, if under‑promoted.