The silent war against RSS

Google, Twitter, and the Mozilla Foundation all want RSS dead
Google, Twitter, and the Mozilla Foundation all want RSS dead

UPDATE: I recently visited Twitter’s support page linked to below and came upon this API Housekeeping post, which indicates that only Atom – not RSS – is being retired.

By now you’ve probably heard of Google’s decision to kill Reader, the leading* RSS feed reading app. While it’s easy – and quite justifiable, I think – to jump on the bandwagon of calling Google evil for doing this, they’re not the first to move against one of the open web’s most useful technologies. In fact, besides Google’s web properties (discussed later below), RSS’ enemies range from open source browser devs to social networks:

  • In 2011, Firefox – one of the supposed champions of the open web – removed the RSS icon from its default UI. Firefox claimed to have removed because only 3% of users clicked it, which is hypocritical given that Firefox itself started from a 0% rate.
  • Google Chrome has never had an RSS icon and displays RSS feeds as plain text exposed code.
  • Twitter first made RSS feeds hidden from browsers by default, and plans to retire them entirely shortly.

Why all the animosity by influential, supposedly benevolent web entities against a protocol that allows users to easily view new content on websites without visiting them from any client they want? Because it’s a protocol that allows uses to easily view new content on websites without visiting them from any client they want. In order of the previous bullet points:

  • It’s bad for Firefox because it reduces user reliance on the browser. Developing a capable RSS reader is no small undertaking, and not only does Firefox lack the resources to do so, proper RSS functionality would add size and complexity to the browser.
  • It’s bad for Chrome for the same reason.
  • Twitter doesn’t want profile RSS feeds for the same reason it restricts 3rd part clients: they want to maintain absolute control over user experience (read: make viewing ads and having user data collected unavoidable).

Google has incentive to kill off Reader too: the existence of Google+. The latter is only place Google wants you to get your latest updates and have all your conversations, not via RSS.

A common comment on RSS is that nearly no one knows about it. That’s true, but the reason is as stated above: RSS’ benefits accrue mostly to users, not content providers. The latter provide it in the hope that it increases the convenience of the former reading their content, and not necessarily as a revenue source. Ad placement in RSS feeds has always been awkward at best. Added to the fact that RSS isn’t owned or sponsored by any major tech company, there’s little commercial incentive to promote it even if a particular provider does support it.

Ironically, one major software vendor supports RSS and even syncs feeds between its desktop and web clients: Microsoft. Outlook has supported RSS feeds since Office 2007. Even Facebook, the largest social network that everyone loves to hate, supports subscribing to Pages via RSS.**

*Technically, I have no data to support this assertion, but anecdotally, just about every standalone RSS reader support Google Reader syncing, which at least makes Reader the most widely supported backend for RSS.

**Facebook is able to avoid duplicating Twitter’s draconian 3rd party app policies by innovating (read: changing/adding features and functionality) faster than any 3rd party vendors without an expensive army of developers (which would require them to think seriously about revenue or face financial ruin) can keep up with.


Author: jdrch

ISTJ, Rice Owl, UF Gator, mechanical engineer. STEM, sports, music, movies, humor. Account mine only & unaffiliated.

7 thoughts on “The silent war against RSS”

  1. Perhaps, but Keep is a different product entirely, AFAIK. It seems to be an Evernote competitor. You do have a point, however. It’s much easier to clip RSS content to note-taking apps because there’s less formatting and extraneous stuff. Conceivably, Google Keep could swallow RSS feeds whole, then allow easy editing, saving, and sharing of posts to Blogger, Twitter, G+, etc. I’m just making an extremely imaginative stretch, though.


  2. It looks like Yammer just ditched importing RSS feeds as well. How ridiculous.

    Here is the part that I think these social networks are missing: who is going to seed the content? Content get disseminated through the network, but it has to get there in the first place. How does that happen? From the ‘small minority’ of RSS users who keep tabs on content producers, harvesting content for the social networks to consume and make viral.

    So Google, Yammer, etc, are destroying the primary consumers that everything else feeds off of.


  3. Do you mind if I quote a few of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your site?

    My blog is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my users would definitely benefit
    from a lot of the information you present here. Please let me know if this ok with you.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s