I am super disappointed, Mozilla!
This is such a slippery slope you've created here. If FF doesn't support RSS anymore then even fewer people will use RSS and RSS will die rather sooner than later. This is such a pity as RSS can really empower users.
You basically infringe your own mission statement:
> Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent.
I don’t see how removing support for rss infringes on this statement. You can still install a plug-in to shape your own experience. In fact, it could be argued that including their own rss support when most users don’t even know what RSS is was itself infringing on that statement.
Exactly. Firefox is not going to "win" by copying Chrome's feature set, dropping features that doesn't have enough "usage" and then compete against thousands of Chrome developers on features that they already are dominating in.
FF should work on the features that Chrome is ignoring, like RSS, so that those core set of people continue using FF. It's stupid to take the mentality of a for-profit product when they are strictly non-profit. So what if very few people are using it, it's the collection of features that will define Firefox over Chrome.
You're not going to win by taking on Chrome head-to-head, that's a losing battle.
They hid the RSS icon a while ago so that the telemetry would tell them that almost noone uses it so that they could remove it from firefox... Firefox is still my favorite, but things like this make me wonder sometimes.
Despite RSS' cult status among Hacker News readers, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that RSS is already dead. It's been dead. I would even go so far as to say it was dead on arrival, because the average user was never able to make any sense of it.
Yup. Once you look at all web browsers including desktop and mobile, Firefox has 5-6% marketshare. I am also super disappointed, see my multiple comments in this thread. I've often promoted FF to others based on this simple, amazing feature. Many times, even here on HN if you read my post history[0][1][2]. See reference [0], 3 years ago mentioning to never kill this feature.
By Mozilla's own logic given in their bugtracker comments and 5% marketshare, Mozilla may as well not even exist and delete all the Firefox code.
They just want to push Pocket and other alternatives that they think they can monetize easier than free and open standards like RSS. This is blatantly against Mozilla's code.
It's time to find a new browser, and I've long been a fan of native browsers for their native optimizations that result in lower power usage. Considering I rarely have my computer even powered on without a browser open, Edge and Safari simply make more sense now that FF only has container support & a dedicated search bar to lure me in.
With Windows 10 Sets likely only to work properly with Edge, and Netflix only supporting 1080P & 4K in Edge, and being optimized for my system's best interests.. MS has more convincing features than Firefox. Firefox was always the (only) browser optimized for my personal best interests, through privacy & features.
Safari, same thing as Edge. Only way to get 1080P Netflix on macOS, supports all the Apple integration features like ApplePay payment support with TouchID, picture-in-picture support for Youtube, and better battery life.
It's a shame what Mozilla has become post-Brandon Eich. They're just chasing nonsense now with Pocket.
I will go against the grain here and say that this is good. RSS is not a core function of a web browser and as such should be handled by an extension, if at all.
I think browsers should render any content type in a way that provides functionality for a user; for example, I think it would be great if when loading a JSON file, I could toggle between the raw data provided and a pretty-printed, syntax-highlighted, collapsable tree view of the JSON file. I think it would be great if when loading an MD file, I could toggle between the raw markdown and a rendered version. Certainly when I load an image or audio file outside a webpage, my browser decodes renders the content usefully.
Given these cases, why would XML files be any different?
I only disagree with this for one reason: many websites have RSS feeds, but don't link to them in an obvious place. Clicking "Subscribe to This Page…" in the Bookmarks menu and get the feed URL is something I do quite a lot. Also good for accessibility, RSS feeds are usually less cluttered than web pages.
The core function of a web browser shouldn't be to pretty print JSON either, yet they recently added that feature in core.
I understand getting rid of XUL legacy cruft, but removing the RSS renderer/reader entirely with no plan other than "extensions will fix it" just leaves a bad taste.
In principle that would be correct if Firefox was a lean browser. But it includes hundreds of integrated components/services no one asked for, most far less useful and less popular than RSS.
Indeed if you want to access RSS through your web browser it makes sense to do so through a hosted service similar to how google groups does for usenet
I don't disagree in principle, but Firefox also breaks extensions indiscriminately so the platform is starting to get defined more by the functionality it's lost than gained.
Running a profitable RSS-driven startup (https://feedity.com), I've come to the conclusion that RSS is not a consumer technology. It's a business technology, and a critical notification 'protocol'.
Millions of businesses, 'knowledge workers' and infovores rely on RSS for their daily workflow and learning, without which they'll have no other reasonable alternative to stay updated with decisive information and insights for high-volume, high-frequency, low-noise Web content.
Starting from Google Reader's shutdown to Firefox's removal of RSS support, it's just that these consumer vendors have not been able to leverage its business use-cases. It's a feature for them that they couldn't monitize, because that requires a different tool-set, which is not their primary product.
RSS is a backbone, much like a simple API, but it was touted as a front-end enriched with ads, analytics, widgets etc., that didn't/can't work for the casual consumer.
RSS ecosystem is alive and healthy for it's vast and core audience, irrespective.
Uh, this post sounds like an ad. The pricing model of that service obviously targets businesses instead of consumers, so it's kind of obvious from where the demand would come.
Not cool. This also seems to imply no support for Atom feeds as well.
I have switched my media channels entirely to RSS/Atom feeds, though I only read them through Emacs. This cannot stop stuff like fake news, but it always seemed important to me to the fact that it makes viewing discussions entirely optional (you have to visit the link for that). The lack of ads is also a plus.
It is all about how you define 'dead'. Some people mean 'dead' as in 'not one single person is still using it' and others mean 'dead' as in 'it is declining in popularity and is no longer mainstream'
RSS is dead for the latter people but not the former.
Firefox' handling of RSS feeds as live bookmarks was one of its killer features back in the day, at least to me. But it must have hit a nerve with others, too, because I remember that Microsoft put something RSS-related into IE7; I never used IE7, though, so I cannot vouch for that.
Of course, there are alternatives, but still - the live bookmarks are really cool and extremely convenient to use. It's a shame they are going to be excised. At least that gives me an incentive to pick up the RSS aggregator I wrote a couple of years back and polish it a little.
Really disappointed in Mozilla. After all, it's quite obvious, if you don't modernize and even continue to hide a feature for years, its usage won't improve unless external events drive the demand.
And since RSS readers counter the interests of both ad- and subscription-driven media, it's unlikely there will be any demand generated by anyone else other than RSS aggregators themselves.
It used to be a way for media to keep their readers updated about new content, which was in line with the interests of both subscription and ad driven media. But since then we've come to have Twitter, Facebook, mobile apps with notifications, even websites with notifications, so RSS has become somewhat redundant.
That's a pity, live bookmarks are useful for things other than blogs, for example bugzilla queries. I hope the Web Extensions API is enough to provide something similar.
I'm not familiar with your reader, so I don't want anyone to take this as a comment on what you've made — but I know that the first two are both monetized, though they don't tell what you'll have to pay up-front. A third-party for-profit business with sketchy monetization practices doesn't seem like a better replacement for RSS integrated in Firefox.
Maybe I didn't do a good job getting this across, but I don't care that much about losing these specific Firefox features.
I really want new users to be able to discover features like RSS/Atom feeds. Live bookmarks can definitely go to the grave in my mind, but I hope Mozilla will focus in the future on web features that help advocate the federated web.
This is sad. Atom is going to be one of those standards that gets uptake eventually, and Mozilla is already positioned well. It cost them nothing to keep it other than the additional maintenance complexity, while removing it upsets the admittedly small at present userbase that use the features alot (like myself). I use Live bookmarks for server status updates, commits, and a number of other things in addition to blogs.
That is easier for me than having Growl on my Mac, DBus notifications on Linux, or Windows Push Notification Service on Windows. Instead I can use one protocol, and the same app I've already installed, on each of those platforms.
> It cost them nothing to keep it other than the additional maintenance complexity, while removing it upsets the admittedly small at present userbase that use the features alot (like myself).
Sounds like they're being pragmatic then by removing a not so popular feature that has the potential of adding maintenance complexity.
Thats really too bad. I use RSS heavily with internal tools to give me sorted lists of config changes, trouble tickets, alarms, caller logs, emails/voicemail, etc.
I also have a nicely curated set of RSS searches from Nyaatorrents, craigslist, Kijiji and a few other sites that I check thru firefox.
As the creator of the infamous Popurls, I can assure you that RSS is anything but dead since I launched a successor at hvper.com a while ago and the site is alive and kicking. Obviously a lot more is coming from APIs these days but no major site has removed support for it.
I would shamelessly suggest to try my web based reader - https://bazqux.com - simple business model, no ads/tracking, just read your feeds effectively.
But in general that's bad. Having feeds support in a browser is a good way to get more people to know about RSS. And the more people know about RSS the better for humanity.
People must know that there are another ways to get content than liking something in a silo. And more importantly - the medium is the message - content that you get in RSS feeds is different from social media. It's not oriented to be likeable or shareable or to make money in any way. It's more about ideas, opinions and utilitarian (not emotional) news. Yes, you could still get junk in RSS feed, but there are much less chances to get it.
Yet another reason not to upgrade to Quantum+ I guess. Currently I've got ~30 RSS/Atom feeds in my toolbar.
Does anyone have Pocket usage numbers to measure its popularity? Web Dev tools? The Firefox Tour? Since we're already discussing stripping out features based on such a corporate metric...
Firefox has been removing stuff for a while... the slippery slope has started at the point when the extension compat checking became a version-based setting that you need to re-set after every update. It was downhill from there... what used to be a hyper customizable browser with lots of features and extensibility, is now just inferior, open-source Chrome wannabe.
I've personally stopped using it a few months ago after being a fan since before it was called Firefox (Mozilla browser? or something). The only things I miss are minor stuff like being able to color tabs (who knows, Firefox might have disabled that too since then).
Chrome doesn't have per-tab accounts/"containers", built-in tracking protection, a screenshot tool, built-in or even first-party dark theme, an API to let extensions hide tabs, or the (upcoming in FF63) ability to control autoplaying video on a per-site basis. And the mobile version still doesn't support extensions at all. Even if you don't use these features, I don't see the argument that FF is a Chrome wannabe.
I think it’s possible the removing stuff is a function of constrained resources, Mozilla might just not have time to stay competitive with chrome/safari etc and maintain all these features at the same time.
Firefox is faster than Chrome on lots of benchmarks, and not controlled by/contributing to Google, and its extension system allows things like NoScript and Tree Style Tabs that Chrome doesn't.
So, now for my RSS feeds I use to check for news articles to read in my browser, I'll now have to install an external program/extension just to load the feed, to read these articles in my browser.
[+] [-] sciurus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cJ0th|7 years ago|reply
You basically infringe your own mission statement:
> Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. An Internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent.
[+] [-] willio58|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfarnsworth|7 years ago|reply
FF should work on the features that Chrome is ignoring, like RSS, so that those core set of people continue using FF. It's stupid to take the mentality of a for-profit product when they are strictly non-profit. So what if very few people are using it, it's the collection of features that will define Firefox over Chrome.
You're not going to win by taking on Chrome head-to-head, that's a losing battle.
[+] [-] trumped|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bittermang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BuckRogers|7 years ago|reply
By Mozilla's own logic given in their bugtracker comments and 5% marketshare, Mozilla may as well not even exist and delete all the Firefox code.
They just want to push Pocket and other alternatives that they think they can monetize easier than free and open standards like RSS. This is blatantly against Mozilla's code.
It's time to find a new browser, and I've long been a fan of native browsers for their native optimizations that result in lower power usage. Considering I rarely have my computer even powered on without a browser open, Edge and Safari simply make more sense now that FF only has container support & a dedicated search bar to lure me in.
With Windows 10 Sets likely only to work properly with Edge, and Netflix only supporting 1080P & 4K in Edge, and being optimized for my system's best interests.. MS has more convincing features than Firefox. Firefox was always the (only) browser optimized for my personal best interests, through privacy & features.
Safari, same thing as Edge. Only way to get 1080P Netflix on macOS, supports all the Apple integration features like ApplePay payment support with TouchID, picture-in-picture support for Youtube, and better battery life.
It's a shame what Mozilla has become post-Brandon Eich. They're just chasing nonsense now with Pocket.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11033694#11033837
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15694926#15700267
[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16721690#16722005 "It's time to head back to RSS? (wired.com)"
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yakamok|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sattoshi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notafraudster|7 years ago|reply
Given these cases, why would XML files be any different?
[+] [-] jscholes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwslack|7 years ago|reply
I understand getting rid of XUL legacy cruft, but removing the RSS renderer/reader entirely with no plan other than "extensions will fix it" just leaves a bad taste.
[+] [-] adrianmalacoda|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FrozenVoid|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rusk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chapium|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdulli|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nreece|7 years ago|reply
Millions of businesses, 'knowledge workers' and infovores rely on RSS for their daily workflow and learning, without which they'll have no other reasonable alternative to stay updated with decisive information and insights for high-volume, high-frequency, low-noise Web content.
Starting from Google Reader's shutdown to Firefox's removal of RSS support, it's just that these consumer vendors have not been able to leverage its business use-cases. It's a feature for them that they couldn't monitize, because that requires a different tool-set, which is not their primary product.
RSS is a backbone, much like a simple API, but it was touted as a front-end enriched with ads, analytics, widgets etc., that didn't/can't work for the casual consumer.
RSS ecosystem is alive and healthy for it's vast and core audience, irrespective.
[+] [-] mandelbulb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4lch3m1st|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthewn|7 years ago|reply
People who use it every day know that it's not dead at all.
Firefox's decision will not make the slightest bit of difference for either group of people.
[+] [-] jasonthevillain|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cortesoft|7 years ago|reply
RSS is dead for the latter people but not the former.
[+] [-] krylon|7 years ago|reply
Of course, there are alternatives, but still - the live bookmarks are really cool and extremely convenient to use. It's a shame they are going to be excised. At least that gives me an incentive to pick up the RSS aggregator I wrote a couple of years back and polish it a little.
[+] [-] mandelbulb|7 years ago|reply
Really disappointed in Mozilla. After all, it's quite obvious, if you don't modernize and even continue to hide a feature for years, its usage won't improve unless external events drive the demand.
And since RSS readers counter the interests of both ad- and subscription-driven media, it's unlikely there will be any demand generated by anyone else other than RSS aggregators themselves.
[+] [-] jarfil|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonzini|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asadotzler|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guybedo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treve|7 years ago|reply
I really want new users to be able to discover features like RSS/Atom feeds. Live bookmarks can definitely go to the grave in my mind, but I hope Mozilla will focus in the future on web features that help advocate the federated web.
[+] [-] nickik|7 years ago|reply
Sadly many pages don't have a good page to browse threw or search podcast. In the RSS page you could do a page search and find all the relevant info.
However there are probably other ways to achieve the same thing, so I'm not really all that opposed.
[+] [-] Communitivity|7 years ago|reply
That is easier for me than having Growl on my Mac, DBus notifications on Linux, or Windows Push Notification Service on Windows. Instead I can use one protocol, and the same app I've already installed, on each of those platforms.
[+] [-] avtar|7 years ago|reply
Sounds like they're being pragmatic then by removing a not so popular feature that has the potential of adding maintenance complexity.
[+] [-] 8bitsrule|7 years ago|reply
OTOH, the constantly-maintained-these-days Thunderbird supports RSS -just fine-.
[+] [-] DrPhish|7 years ago|reply
I also have a nicely curated set of RSS searches from Nyaatorrents, craigslist, Kijiji and a few other sites that I check thru firefox.
[+] [-] marban|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeoPanthera|7 years ago|reply
Do sites pay you to be higher up the page?
[+] [-] Baeocystin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|7 years ago|reply
bro not cool. I don't want your backend recommendation engine tracking what I'm doing.
(online or off)
(and, yes, I disabled it, as well rewired the pocket-relevant urls to example.com)
[+] [-] vshabanov|7 years ago|reply
But in general that's bad. Having feeds support in a browser is a good way to get more people to know about RSS. And the more people know about RSS the better for humanity.
People must know that there are another ways to get content than liking something in a silo. And more importantly - the medium is the message - content that you get in RSS feeds is different from social media. It's not oriented to be likeable or shareable or to make money in any way. It's more about ideas, opinions and utilitarian (not emotional) news. Yes, you could still get junk in RSS feed, but there are much less chances to get it.
[+] [-] Jach|7 years ago|reply
Does anyone have Pocket usage numbers to measure its popularity? Web Dev tools? The Firefox Tour? Since we're already discussing stripping out features based on such a corporate metric...
[+] [-] sershe|7 years ago|reply
I've personally stopped using it a few months ago after being a fan since before it was called Firefox (Mozilla browser? or something). The only things I miss are minor stuff like being able to color tabs (who knows, Firefox might have disabled that too since then).
[+] [-] sp332|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgillen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roca|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheCapeGreek|7 years ago|reply