Sorry guys, but I've got to agree with Dave Winer on this one. By Google killing its own RSS, suddenly there's new competition for that software space again, and one less space that Google won't control or censor: "People will be well-served by a newly revitalized market for RSS products, now that the dominant product, the 800-pound gorilla, is withdrawing."
http://www.zdnet.com/rss-inventor-doesnt-see-what-all-the-fuss-is-about-closing-google-reader-7000012687/

Huh? How did Google control the news flow? I'm the one who put the feeds I wanted to follow into Google Reader.

You set up the the feeds, but they controlled what came into them.  They could put a filter on it, and other than by someone else telling you there was something else on the site, you wouldn't know.  Sort of like their search now.  Unless you go somewhere else and search, you don't know that there's something missing.

I found a laughable article on ZDNet, about why are you using RSS in 2013.  The replacement?  Twitter.

Please.  Twitter is barely useful unless you're in the always connected always checking universe.  And with people checking in to everywhere they go and posting up so much noise that the signal is strangled, I don't see how anyone could confuse Twitter with news aggregation.

Obviously we shouldn't trust the official reasons Google offered for killing Reader. The demise of Reader is a massive statement on how Google believes the internet should not be read: [1] as a private, unmediated experience (as opposed to a "social" reading experience, say facebook, twitter or Plus) and [2] with an open standard (RSS) serving as a direct link between reader and content producer.

I use Reader A LOT - more than any other Google product, but I'm kind of grateful for the wake up call. It reminds me that Google won't hesitate before cancelling any other service, even one that feels as "natural" as, say, blogger. Blogging is declining in usage as much as Reader, I guess.

Sorry guys, but I've got to agree with Dave Winer on this one. By Google killing its own RSS, suddenly there's new competition for that software space again, and one less space that Google won't control or censor.

This guy I mentioned before is even more on the spot, I'd say:

Google, destroyer of ecosystems

A German "journalist" ("ZEIT" magazine) wrote that this is the end of RSS and it means that "news are now only available via Facebook which isn't open".

Oh the humanity.

They said July 1, 2013. But since today there doesn't seem to be a menu entry for Reader in the google menu bar any more (and it already was under More anyway)

Yes, I know. But they could just have left the menu entry until July 1 as well.

Maybe they need the space for their upcoming new dead project.

Goodbye, Google Reader by Paulo Brabo, on Flickr

No joke intended.

Interesting and relevant post here: An Apology To My RSS Readers – But I Had To Do It. (Updated)

It shows that what I suggested (in an earlier post somewhere) is true - i.e., that using Google Reader (or other feed aggregator) meant you could get an idea of a news/post item without going to the web page and without creating any ad-clicks (monetisation). So it is a potential commercial loss - unless you get the user to visit the page - though it is probably great from the user's perspective, of course.

Interesting and relevant post here: An Apology To My RSS Readers – But I Had To Do It. (Updated)

It shows that what I suggested (in an earlier post somewhere) is true - i.e., that using Google Reader (or other feed aggregator) meant you could get an idea of a news/post item without going to the web page and without creating any ad-clicks (monetisation). So it is a potential commercial loss - unless you get the user to visit the page - though it is probably great from the user's perspective, of course.

I find it interesting how so many (who do know better) keep trying to refer to RSS as "creaky" and "outdated" when what they're really trying to do is justify abandoning something quite useful and easy to implement which thousands have found good use for.

I'm glad to see the article brought up the issue of unauthorized content scraping however. That is a serious issue which will eventually put much of what's worth reading on the web out of business if it continues. At least as far as the smaller self-supporting content providers, who try to provide their readers with an experience that goes a basic blog, are concerned. And unfortunately, full text RSS feeds do make it very easy to scrape. There are even horror stories of scrapers filing DMCA takedown notices against the original content creators as a preemptive strike when confronted.

A real problem with no easy solution I'm afraid.

But implying that RSS is "outdated" or "ancient" or somehow in need of abandonment because it "doesn't work" (as some are saying) is more than a little disingenuous. If RSS isn't practical or 'working' any more, it's not for technical reasons. It's for commercial ones.