upvote
My take on the RSS-renaissance chestnut: The original sin is the name. Only clueless nerds could come up with such a soporific, opaque, geeky moniker as "RSS". It should have been called "Webfeed". Then there would be no explaining to do.
reply
And at the same time, the fastest growing consumer product of all time is called ”ChatGPT”.
reply
Chat gpt is a great name though — you “chat” with the “GPT” so its self informing (even if you dont know what a GPT is), it’s 4 syllables that roll off the tongue well together.

RSS, has no vowels, no information, and looks like an alphabet term you might see at the doctor’s office or in an HR onboarding form at a corpo.

reply
Perhaps if the product is compelling enough, the name doesn’t matter - and conversely, if the product is borderline, it had better have a great name.
reply
This is a great point. Maybe we can start now?

Apparently is is called web feed, although I never have heard this until I searched off the back of your comment[0].

Apparently, web feed also encompasses Atom and JSON feed as well as RSS, which is probably more in the spirit of how people actually say "RSS".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_feed

reply
I think web feed is a good name, though I also think invoking "Web" might put off some users. There are a few things that are unknown to new users:

1. How do you subscribe? 2. How do you post your own? 3. Do I need a browser to read feeds? 4. Can I view my feed from any device?

The current status quo for web feeds is very unfriendly to new users. If you click on an rss icon or an rss feed link, it takes you to a white page with a bunch of text that you don't understand. It just makes you think you're not supposed to be here, so you close the tab and leave.

Many feed readers are old and look dated. The UI can often be confused for an email client. And many of these readers don't support synchronizing feeds with different devices.

reply
It's simple. It stands for Radically Syndicated Seeds... right?
reply
Sure, naming is important, but the RSS icon was well known. It was part of the Firefox address bar.
reply
You don't need to explain RSS any more than you need to explain SMTP or HTTP. A product that uses RSS could gain traction without the user ever knowing it uses RSS. Products like Google Reader prove that is possible.
reply
> If you have to explain it, there is zero chance of massive adoption.

Here's the thing, one should not need to explain it no mire. Devices or applications accessing content with an RSS option should present it to the end user through a convenient interface.

reply
So how did it manage to gain wide adoption originally?
reply
I'm happily using RSS despite you needing an explanation. Funny how that works.
reply
I've been calling it 'Really Social Sites' for a long time. ;)
reply
It just needs to be described in a more concrete way to people. Such as, You know how the podcasts you listen to keep getting updated on your phone? That's RSS. Imagine if other things you liked turned up when they were new and you had a lot of control over that process.
reply
Most non-tech people I know listen to podcasts through Spotify and some think Spotify invented them.

Looking how podcasts advertise themselves, those who do use RSS advertise "Apple Podcasts or in your favorite podcast app" here.

reply
It's been the absolute worst thing for 10+ years that some podcasts have adverts, even their own website, but somehow fail to provide the RSS feed link anywhere - only app specific links for the biggest 2.

You also have people producing "podcasts" that only exist on youtube.

reply