On http://newsblur.com users have two options for sharing links. They can either use a Send To feature, which uses the story's original URL, and hook it up to any number of third party services like Twitter, Facebook, Evernote, Tumblr, Instapaper, etc.
Or they can share to their blurblog, which is a shared stories blog. When users share links to their blurblog, the tweeted link goes to the user's blurblog, like so: http://samuel.newsblur.com/story/family-feuds/4e65d5. It includes their commentary and offers a place to reply to the user. Alternatively, you can turn on a setting that takes you directly to the story.
I think Feedly's intention here isn't what's best for users, since you don't have the option to comment on the story and have people reply to you, which would necessitate its own page. This is more of the Send To feature described above, and I think it's part of their drive to find additional revenue where there isn't much.
RSS is not a growing market and I think only independent developers with small costs will end up alive in a few years. Feedly will either have to evolve and find a bigger market, or pare down the cost of hosting the majority of Google Reader expats. And that doesn't square well with taking investment.
> RSS is not a growing market and I think only independent developers with small costs will end up alive in a few years. Feedly will either have to evolve and find a bigger market, or pare down the cost of hosting the majority of Google Reader expats. And that doesn't square well with taking investment.
Exactly right.
The rush to fill the Reader gap with a broad and compelling offering (high quality mobile and web apps) was a problem outside the scope of small developers, but the long term prospects for the market are below sustaining levels for larger, funded businesses.
I do hope Feedly can figure out a way, without making me dislike them en route. If not, I hope they offer a data export.
They should be tackling monetisation for publishers, microtransactions, spotify-style royalties, etc. There's a lot of room for innovation in the RSS market, but being arrogant and squeezing as much as you can out of free content doesn't help anyone in the long run.
You might be right... but there's a lot of room for innovation because nobody has been able to come up with anything that works, not because nobody tried.
The problem that i see is that once big 'popular' readers are gone, it's possible that publishers decide that RSS is a feature not worth having/maintaining. That's a choice that has been made already by platforms like Twitter and such.
A lot of new (more recent) blog platforms also did not prioritize RSS.
So, as much as I agree with the statement, I'm worried that in the end, we'll all lose.
Finally, Feedly's strategy here is probably one of the best way to make sure that publishers stop puvblising RSS feeds.
Or they can share to their blurblog, which is a shared stories blog. When users share links to their blurblog, the tweeted link goes to the user's blurblog, like so: http://samuel.newsblur.com/story/family-feuds/4e65d5. It includes their commentary and offers a place to reply to the user. Alternatively, you can turn on a setting that takes you directly to the story.
I think Feedly's intention here isn't what's best for users, since you don't have the option to comment on the story and have people reply to you, which would necessitate its own page. This is more of the Send To feature described above, and I think it's part of their drive to find additional revenue where there isn't much.
RSS is not a growing market and I think only independent developers with small costs will end up alive in a few years. Feedly will either have to evolve and find a bigger market, or pare down the cost of hosting the majority of Google Reader expats. And that doesn't square well with taking investment.