The next version of Internet Explorer will include a built-in RSS reader (like Firefox and Safari already do). Microsoft raised a bit of a stink the other day when it annnounced that it would not call them RSS feeds, opting instead for the term “Web Feeds”.
This actually seems like a smart move to me. Although everyone seems up in arms about it, how much different is this than Mozilla’s decision to use the term “Live Bookmarks” in its Firefox browser? The simpler, less “techy” a feature sounds, the more chance that normal people are willing to use it.
Microsoft defended its position the other day, replying to criticism by veteran blogger Dave Winer.
Having watched RSS blossom from a bloggers’ tool into a key component of rival browsers Firefox and Safari, Microsoft has embraced the technology, although its implentation will be known as Web Feeds.
With good reason claims MSN Spaces lead program manager Mike Torres in his blog, because Microsoft is adding additional functionality to the underlying RSS technology.
The only thing that I am unsure of is the “additional functionality” that is planned for IE7′s implementation of RSS.
“additional functionality” is what microsoft calls the security holes and assorted bugs it will no doubt have. Much the same way they call glitches and bugs in their programs “features”.
Why call them RSS feeds if the news reader (whatever that may be) also supports Atom?
Instead of wandering what name they should give to feeds they should waste more time making the browser SECURE and FUNCTIONAL. I don’t give a damn if they suddenly call the Back button “Opsie this is not the site I wanted bring me back Scottie” as long as the browser works.
Isn’t that microsoft though, they have never actually invented any technology. They steal it or buy it and then they market it better then anyone else.
That was very arrogant for them to try and change the name of a well established technology.
You peole do realize that Bill Gates could give every man woman and child in the world a million dollars and he would still be in the top 10 of the richest people in the world.
Scary, if its true Cellounge!
But perhaps they chose not to call them ‘RSS Feeds’ because it doesn’t just support RSS?
Folks – FYI: that quote did not come from my mouth.
“You peole do realize that Bill Gates could give every man woman and child in the world a million dollars and he would still be in the top 10 of the richest people in the world.”
Whatever. There are 6,446,131,400 in the world today. One million dollars each? I don’t think so. You do the math.
Am I the only one who find rss feeds distracting? I guess I’m a bit backwards: I don’t even like tabbed browsing.
By the way, I knew Bill Gates was rich, but damn! 6 billion people x $1 million each = 6e15 or 6 quadrillion dollars! Strange thing is, that’s over a hundred times the money in the whole world!
Note: Whenever you have ‘quadrillion’ involved that’s not related to science, you know you’re talking to a kid.
You’re right of course that it’s an absurd claim, cliche, but you apparently don’t understand what GDP is, either.
“GDP is defined as the total value of all goods and services produced within that territory during a specified period (or, if not specified, annually)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
So still ridiculous, but not ‘over a hundred times the money in the whole world’
Gates, btw, is actually worth 46.5 billion at last official report. Warren Buffet is at 44; the #3 position is considerably less, at 25
http://www.forbes.com/worldsrichest/
So, given David’s figure above, BG could give everyone about $7.21
Not quite a million.
I know that comparing GDP to world money is oversimplified, and purposely done so I wouldn’t have to write the summery of econ101 just to give a rough comparison. Perhaps a better model would be the US Federal Reserve: Average M3 is about 10 trillion dollars; US is about a fifth of world economy. This is oversimplified as well, but it’s the best I can do without writing a thesis. Now, how do you figure that it’s *not* over a hundred times the money in the whole world?
By the way, that wiki quote is way oversimplified as well: The whole article gives much better insight.