How Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds (2023)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s shutdown of Google Reader and retreat from RSS features is seen by many as a turning point in the web’s shift from open, decentralized content to ad-driven, closed platforms. Commenters argue that RSS, despite being technically simple and still widely supported under the hood (especially for blogs, podcasts, and even YouTube), lost mainstream momentum because it’s hard to monetize and wasn’t marketed to non-technical users. Others push back that centralized social networks and email newsletters would likely have dominated anyway, while a smaller but committed community continues to rely on RSS and build new tools around it.

Overall sentiment about Google and RSS

  • Many commenters see Google’s killing of Reader (and related moves) as a turning point from “don’t be evil” to “actively user‑hostile.”
  • Strong emotional reactions: betrayal, “breakup” with Google, and lingering anger; others dismiss this as overblown ranting.
  • Some argue Google isn’t obligated to support RSS; blaming it for RSS’s decline is seen by a few as unfair or overstated.

Why Google might have undermined RSS

  • RSS is decentralized and bypasses platform control, which clashes with Google’s preference to intermediate everything.
  • Monetization issues: ads are harder to insert, track, and personalize in RSS; feeds that give full content weaken page‑view–based ad models.
  • Reader’s shutdown is widely perceived as a move to push Google+ and fit internal “strategic priorities,” even at the cost of a beloved product.
  • Several note a broader pattern: Google launches good products (Reader, Google Music, Podcasts), then kills or folds them into weaker, ad‑heavier or closed offerings (Google+, YouTube Music).

Broader cultural critique of Google

  • Commenters describe a culture that rewards launches, not maintenance; anything under a billion users isn’t valued.
  • Criticism that Google “hates end users,” focuses only on advertisers, and offers poor support and recourse.
  • Examples like Stadia, Buzz, Wave, and G+ cited as symptoms of strategic whiplash and tone‑deaf product decisions.

State of RSS and alternatives

  • RSS is still heavily used in “geek circles”: self‑hosted (FreshRSS), desktop/mobile readers (NetNewsWire, newsboat, yarr, etc.), and as podcast infrastructure.
  • Many sites and platforms still emit feeds (blogs, WordPress, BBC, YouTube channels), sometimes unintentionally generous (even paywalled content).
  • Barriers: RSS is seen as “too nerdy,” poorly marketed, often blocked by sites or stripped from browsers (Chrome never supported nicely; Firefox removed Live Bookmarks).
  • Some propose new models: RSS plus AI summarization, paid reader subscriptions sharing revenue with publishers, or integrating RSS into open‑web initiatives and ActivityPub.

Social media, newsletters, and the “enshittified” web

  • Centralized social networks, TikTok‑style algorithms, Reddit, and newsletters are seen as having captured the distribution RSS once offered.
  • Nostalgia for an earlier, more hobbyist, protocol‑driven web; now perceived as dominated by walled gardens and ad‑optimization.
  • A few argue RSS was never destined for the mainstream, especially without strong monetization, and that centralized social feeds would have won regardless.