Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Almighty Buck The Internet

Feedburner Sale to Google Confirmed 117

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the going-going-gone dept.
Techdirt is reporting that the rumored sale of Feedburner to Google has been confirmed. "Feedburner is in the closing stages of being acquired by Google for around $100 million. The deal is all cash and mostly upfront, according to our source, although the founders will be locked in for a couple of years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feedburner Sale to Google Confirmed More

Feedburner Sale to Google Confirmed

Comments Filter:

  • VCs have changed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hirschma ( 187820 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:36PM (#19244149)
    Back in the Web "1.0" days, VCs would never have settled for a payout that small. In fact, they'd rather have the company die - they were in the business of hitting grand-slams, looking for the billion(s) dollar(s) payout.

    This is "only" 10x. Does that mean that VCs have come to their senses? Anyone have any insight into this?

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I for one welcome our newly come to their sences VC overlords!

    • Re:VCs have changed? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Richard McBeef ( 1092673 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:53PM (#19244435)
      Back in the Web "1.0" days, VCs would never have settled for a payout that small...This is "only" 10x

      No shit. This is way worse than the 0X that most VC companies reaped back in the days of web 1.0.
      • That's the point. Many good companies that could have been sold were left to die on the vine while they chased super-duper payouts like Netscape, Yahoo, etc. I had VCs tell me that if they couldn't see a way to 100x return, they didn't even bother - before or after investment.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by maxume ( 22995 )
          Did they do a good job picking up your garbage?

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Richard McBeef ( 1092673 )
            Did they do a good job picking up your garbage?

            Not only that, but they did it for free. And if anyone beat their price, the next pickup was 50% off plus they'd mow your lawn and wash your dog all while delivering 50 cents worth of groceries (20% off) on a motorbike from a store 15 miles away.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by davidu ( 18 )
          I've never heard of a VC say they expect a 100x return. Not in your wildest dreams. Maybe if the amount of total investment is like under $50,000 could I see that expectation.

          Sequoia Capital is one of the best in the business and they have had 5 exits, maybe 10 at most, that were over a billion dollars.

          10x is nothing to sneeze at. 20x is great. 50x is fantastic. 100x is abnormally impressive.

          -david

    • Re:VCs have changed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @05:11PM (#19244735) Homepage Journal
      Definitely changed... looking for 3x plus on mid-terms.

      I was at a startup for 4 years that just sold last year for 165M... w/ 60M in VC money. The early investors got 3X the late got 1.5X but at a better pricepoint (they could buy more). First round was 15M, second was 30M, 3rd was 15M. I made 8.5K via options exercised as a lowly employee on a 1.5k pricepoint (0.15 per share, 9650 shares approx) but VCs got 3x that on average with several million shares each at different prices.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by shelterpaw ( 959576 )
      Yes. It all depends on the investment size and how much the VC owns and the market potential. Most VC's look for 20% to 30% ownership and estimate market potential between 3 and 5 years. 5 Years is pretty normal anything beyond that and they're looking for a larger return. But companies can be funded from as little as 1mm to 150mm. So the expected return will vary with investment size. With something like this company they must have met potential. A return of 10 times investment is pretty nice and I doubt

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jonesvery ( 121897 )

      This is "only" 10x. Does that mean that VCs have come to their senses? Anyone have any insight into this?

      The difference is more in the scale than in the multiple. 10x is a respectable rate of return for a VC investment; the ending number is "small" because Feedburner only took $10MM in two rounds of funding, where some 1.0 companies burned through that much VC cash on lunches with their branding consultants.

      That said, the B round, at least, came from VCs that never lost their senses to begin with (Brad

    • The article says the deals for cash. Most of the dot-com sales, although for higher numbers, were for 10% cash, and the rest in stock that often turned out to be worthless. This is worth a lot more real money right now for the sellers. Also, these are the guys that founded spyonit.com, which sold to 24/7 back in the day.

  • So what if they are locked in? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:37PM (#19244171)
    They are getting $100 mil and they probably dont leave their parents basements all that much anyway.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dude dont you realize how bad they have it? they are LOCKED IN! they cant go out and buy brand new Ferrari sports cars, giant mansions and have their teeth replaced with solid gold.

      Can we start a relif fund for these guys? Maybe we can get someone to shove doughnuts in through a vent for them during the next 2 years.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Namlak ( 850746 )
      They are getting $100 mil and they probably dont leave their parents basements all that much anyway.

      Yeah, but now they can afford to buy their parents a house with a 10,000 sq ft basement!
    • On the contrary, 100mil buys a lot of trips to the comic store.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by simong ( 32944 )
      No, what Google mean is that they're giving the founders $100m in five dollar bills, then locking them in a cupboard. Someone's been reading too much H.P. Lovecraft recently.

  • Why bother? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:37PM (#19244179)
    Google already gets my feed itself through feedfetcher and it is one of the few subscribers to my feedburner feed. It also subscribes itself to several other feeds (bloglines).

    I don't see what good it does Google to own this company.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are you kidding me?

      Google gets to see your RSS readership data. That's quite important for advertising....

    • Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @05:02PM (#19244613) Homepage Journal
      I think they're just stamping out competition. And they don't have to keep doing it forever, either. They buy one or two more of 'em and people will stop starting them. When Google has the top three of whatever, people will mostly stop making whatever. The procedure worked for Microsoft time and time again, why not Google? :)

      • The procedure worked for Microsoft time and time again, why not Google? :)

        Yeah, like Microsoft dominated search and online advertising, right? Oh wait.

        No company is invincible. Microsoft was in the same boat 10 years ago and they managed to screw it up. The bigger they get, the slower and less innovative Google gets, and the harder it becomes to attract and retain top talent (yes, some people want to work for a cause other than the dollar). Google could fall just as fast if some young upstart moves

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) *
          Meh. If microsoft hadn't won, then decided that, since they'd won, all further development was a waste of time, there would have been no niche for new operators. We'd all be on IE11 by now, because they'd have agressively ported it to all operating systems in a bid to globally corner the hugely important browser market, and then they'd have built online application inventories through their massively dominant search portal that were tied directly to the pc through activeX.

          Instead, they acted like fools, and
          • IBM used to be the kingfisher. Then a small company selling operating systems and basic interpreters for toy home computer overtook them. Now a small company doing web searches is overtaking them... see a pattern here?
      • Also: Google has huge brand recognition, until today I didn't know that feed broadcasting was big business. Now I do because Google paid $100m .... and who do I know that now does feed broadcasting ? So if I was actually a webmaster that earned some bucks from ads & was thinking about RSS - I'd now go straight to GoogleBurner. I don't even bother looking for competitors (who might be marginally better) as : It keeps things simple for me: I just have to hold one concept in my head "Google good: Google ha

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )
        It is completely different. Underlying M$ success was hardware and applications. Having a brad based OS simplifies hardware choices and application choices, once a lead is gained it can be leveraged for even greater dominance. The Internet is a protocol, an extremely competitive environment, virtually impossible to dominate in the same scope you can with an operating system.

        Although it is unlikely that any one will ever dominate search to the same extent as google it is equally certain the google's market

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by trawg ( 308495 )

        They buy one or two more of 'em and people will stop starting them
        Weird, I think the opposite - the more things Google buy, the more incentive people have to start things in the hope they'll get bought out.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Raenex ( 947668 )

          Yeah, I agree with you. Grandparent didn't make any sense. "Stop throwing money at us! Please stop!"

          Obligatory Simpsons Quote

          Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!

          Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!

          Bill Gates companions begin to trash the "office".

          Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!

          Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!

  • Eat my dirt, techcrunch! (Score:4, Informative)

    by mfaras ( 979322 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:38PM (#19244217) Homepage
    I googled techdirt, and I searched their blog, and there's nothing about google and feedburner, take a look:
    http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=feedburner [techdirt.com]

    So I'm betting scuttlemonkey typo'ed it, and it's actualy techcrunch, as the link says.

    Please correct the summary.

    --
    Eat my dirt.

  • Benefits (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jshriverWVU ( 810740 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:39PM (#19244219)
    It seems Google as acquired a lot of these marketing/advertising/blogging sites. What does this one offer the rest didnt or google couldn't develop themselves?

    • What does this one offer the rest didnt or google couldn't develop themselves?
      Existing userbase, previous stats... more than enough.
    • Having the technology. Now. And no major competition with an already mature product.

    • All style, little substance (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:58PM (#19244525)

      It seems Google as acquired a lot of these marketing/advertising/blogging sites. What does this one offer the rest didnt or google couldn't develop themselves?


      For all of the macho recruiting process that Google is known for, and for all of the accompanying swagger, the reality is that Google's employees are unable to deliver beyond the patented PageRank search algorithm produced by Brin and Page and the patented Overture advertising system that Google licenses from Yahoo. That is why in the space of just a couple of years, Google has been rapidly buying up companies, from Keyhole (the original creators of Google Earth) to YouTube to DoubleClick. There is nothing technologically shattering or innovative about YouTube, so it speaks to volumes that Google paid such a large amount of money to acquire it. Every dollar spent on an acquisitions is a public admission of the incompetence of its internal employees.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by charlesnw ( 843045 )
        I couldn't agree more. Google has produced NOTHING else of any substance beyond search. And even then the search isn't all that great. The algorithim isn't even all that inovative and is implemented by many search engines.

      • the reality is that Google's employees are unable to deliver beyond the patented PageRank search algorithm

        I'd say Google Maps was a deliverable they punched through. It revolutionalized (ok maybe not such a strong word) online maps, kicking mapquest and yahoo in the butt. But you're right, google maps was a while ago...


      • I so want to tell you to go fuck yourself for saying such a vicious thing, but .. everything you're saying rings true, dammit. *sigh*

        Writing blogging software is easy, and Google supposedly has smart people. Pay two or three of 'em 3 months of paychecks, and they ought to have something that kicks ass. Instead, they're buying outsiders' work. WTF?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by larry bagina ( 561269 )

        It's a slight exaggeration, but there's a lot of truth in there. Google has 2 dozen people working on a powerpoint webapp. The Paul Graham/YCombinator article a couple weeks back mentioned someone who was working on something similar in his spare time. Google tried to buy it out from him, but he turned them down. Buying something for the name value, goodwill, existing users, etc is one thing, but when you can't compete with an unreleased, part time project, maybe something is wrong.

        That said, google i

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aussie_a ( 778472 )

        There is nothing technologically shattering or innovative about YouTube, so it speaks to volumes that Google paid such a large amount of money to acquire it.
        Yes, it says Google with all of their name power, is still willing to buy others with name power.
    • The following line from Feedburner's homepage probably says it all...

      "See why brands like Microsoft & Verizon choose FeedBurner for blog and RSS advertising."
    • Well Google's concern is that they wish to control our interface to information, as more people rely on RSS they are less likely to encounter Google (and ads). Most siteowners will still want their ad revenue preserved when they go RSS - so this is the way for them to do it.

      More from Techcrunch [techcrunch.com] (another article) One reason a blog or website owner would want to use this is because it simplifies the RSS feed. The Feed URL for Techcrunch, for instance, is "http://feeds.feedburner.com/Techcrunch", which is a much simpler format that standard RSS feeds. Also, most blogging software offers a variety of RSS feeds - Atom, RSS 1.0, 2.0, etc. Sometimes these feeds don't work properly with some readers. And if a site can get most of its readers to use the single Feedburner feed, they can take advantage of the great statistics and tools to see where readers are coming from and what they are clicking on.

      The big reason for using FeedBurner, however, is that it can automatically add Google Adsense adds to your feeds, allowing you to easily generate revenue if you have a large enough audience. There are a number of influential bloggers who don't like this service, however (and other aspects of FeedBurner as well) - see Relevant Links below for more information.

      So Google now has bought the best RSS broadcaster that already serves Google ads (and the review is from 2005).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vakuona ( 788200 )
        Or they could have left Microsoft to buy Feedburner, and wake up one day without feedburner ad revenue.

        They are doing a Microsoft here. I am pretty smug in my corner.
    • A well known name.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by krelian ( 525362 )
      I can't find an exact link but there was news a couple of weeks ago about a patent google filed that basically says that they are using feed popularity to judge which blogs are of higher quality and as such more relevant for search rankings. Feedburner is a perfect resource to get accurate feed popularity data.
  • This can't end well.

    I've been in this room for eight years now, Clarice. I know they will never, ever let me out while I'm alive. What I want is a view. I want a window where I can see a tree, or even water. I want to be in a federal institution, far away from Dr. Chilton.
  • .... In 3 - 2 - 1.....
  • It's rather obvious that these two companies are buying smaller ones with high growth. What will happen with the freedom of speech, when these giants are "buying the web" ?
    • I don't know but since that question come up in every /. discussion about big corporations purchasing smaller companies, I advice you to look there ;)
  • I think this an excellent move by Google. They are going to be able to leverage Feedburners stickyend methodology to promote brick-and-mortar businesses....no they just bought out some competition like a budding monopoly. Wait did I say budding? I meant existing.

  • yawn (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A firm that pays very generously to the highly qualified (in traditional academic terms) to snap them up and squander their research, while growing by buying up moderately successful, established firms for peanuts and pouring in the capital.

    Wait, were we talking about Microsoft or Google?

  • what exactly does feedburner do? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by andres32a ( 448314 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @04:57PM (#19244499) Homepage
    Excuse me if this question is dumb but what exactly does feedburner do? I just don't get it.
    • Could the slashdot janitors erm I mean "editors" please do their job and maybe link to wikipedia or something that explains feedburner.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Richard McBeef ( 1092673 )
        Not that I don't not disagree with about what worthless pieces of shit that Slashdot editors aren't, but linking to Wikipedia is the epitome of laziness. It is so full of unfactual misinformation that it can't be not trusted in it's integrity or, as one would say, lack thereof.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Weaselmancer ( 533834 )

      Pretty much the same thing CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet does, but with RSS.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kalriath ( 849904 )

      Excuse me if this question is dumb but what exactly does feedburner do? I just don't get it.
      Do you get the Slashdot RSS feed? Feedburner does that. (In fact, the Slashdot RSS feed IS a Feedburner feed). I think it adds advertising to the RSS... or something. Never seen it though.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by McD ( 209994 )
      I love RSS, and I wondered that myself. I'm still not sure - but I know they serve up ads in RSS feeds, which was good enough to get 'em blocked at my firewall.

      Ads in feeds are horribly distracting. I suspect it's only a matter of time before every RSS reader out there starts to implement ad blocking.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Google buying traffic again. But why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @05:01PM (#19244591) Homepage

    What's so weird is that, as with YouTube, Google is buying traffic. Not revenue. Not technology. Traffic. One wouldn't think that Google needed more traffic. More revenue from its traffic, maybe, but more traffic from free services?

    Google, according to Alexa, is #2 in traffic, and Yahoo is #1. But Google isn't far behind. These buys look like a desperate attempt to displace Yahoo as #1. Whether this make economic sense isn't clear.

    Interestingly, Google traffic takes a dive every weekend, as does Feedburner, but Yahoo traffic does not. Look at the Alexa graphs. That gives a sense of how much work-related use the site gets. Slashdot, incidentally, has a strong weekly cycle, much stronger than Google.

    It's still not clear if Google's expansion beyond search will be seen a few years hence as a good move or as corporate megalomania.

  • Not Good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jack Action ( 761544 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @05:02PM (#19244617)
    I use Feedburner heavily for various blogs and podcasts; and if you asked me a year ago about the Google take-over, I would have said great (or, who cares?).

    But since then I've seen too many half-assed Google projects (especially around rss feeds: the Google reader for example is terrible compared to a competitor like Bloglines). Google recently redid the presentation of the statistics service they aquired (Google Analytics), making it worse. Feedburner is currently a great service that is intuitive, innovative and easy to use. But when Google gets through with it, I fear it too be half-assed.

    As it has no doubt been said by others, Google is shaping up to be another Microsoft: using its dominance in one area (search), to force consumers into using inferior products. Google is doing it though by "killing with kindness" -- buying up the innovators and strangling them, rather then Microsoft's heavy tactics.
    • Google recently redid the presentation of the statistics service they aquired (Google Analytics), making it worse.

      The new analytics interface is FAR superior to the prior. I can get more information out it very quickly compared to the original. I can also dig deeper into particular characteristics of the stats what weren't possible before, or at least not easily found. Even just the new mini-graphs on the default from page are immensely helpful.

      You're the first person I've heard complain about the new in

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by garcia ( 6573 )
      But since then I've seen too many half-assed Google projects (especially around rss feeds: the Google reader for example is terrible compared to a competitor like Bloglines).

      Sorry, I disagree. While I don't care for online RSS readers at all (and don't use them), I much prefer the Google Reader UI to that of Bloglines.

      Google recently redid the presentation of the statistics service they aquired (Google Analytics), making it worse.

      What about it do you think is worse? I love the fact that I can easily chang

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by antic ( 29198 )
        I'm with you - the new Analytics interface is easy to read and enjoyable to use.
      • I actually prefer Google Homepage to everything else I've seen so far (including Yahoo's version) when it comes to RSS feeds. Its simple, but I can search from it as well as check on my feeds. And no giant banners like Yahoo.
    • "Google recently redid the presentation of the statistics service they aquired (Google Analytics), making it worse"

      Statements like these are more opinion than anything. Everyone I know likes the revamp better, along with the additional features. Honestly, it is far and away the best free service of its kind.

  • am I the only one (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sentientbrendan ( 316150 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @05:05PM (#19244667)
    who doesn't see what the big deal is with RSS feeds? Or doesn't see why they need to be included in every little application (like safari, firefox, thunderbird, etc).

    Usually when I am *online* and want to look at the news from a site... I don't grab their RSS feed, I just go to their site...

    It seems like an okay way of exchanging information between different sites in a very limited fashion, but that doesn't make it important or worth spending a lot of money on. It's just one more xml schema for doing something really simple... I don't understand the hype.
    • For the longest time, I agreed with you. But there are two circumstances I've observed which make RSS helpful: 1) Rarely updated sites. If a site exists, is alive, but is not frequently updated (like Paul Graham) I might subscribe to its feed so I won't forget about it but won't check back day-after-day to find nothing has changed. 2) Too much to keep track of. While some sites might only update once a day or a few times a week, like Anandtech, there are others which update many, many times a day (like Slas

    • RSS for quick summaries and checking updates (Score:5, Informative)

      by Quevar ( 882612 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @05:33PM (#19245063)

      Usually when I am *online* and want to look at the news from a site... I don't grab their RSS feed, I just go to their site...
      You seem to be missing the idea of RSS feeds. You shouldn't be grabbing the RSS feed, your application should be and displaying the information to you so you don't have to go to their site to see what has changed. I have about 20 different sites that I pay attention to. It takes a noticeable amount of time to go to all twenty sites. So, I subscribe to their RSS feeds and when they change the content, I will see that I haven't looked at an article. Without even going to their site, I can can look at the headline and a brief summary to see if I want to read more. Many times, just a headline and a summary is all I want. I can glance through the summary in a small fraction of the time it takes to open up all the sites.

      Another way of thinking about it is for sites that don't change much. Imagine I have 50 friends who have websites that I want to check. Most of my friends only update their pages a couple times a month, but that means that on average, two sites are updated a day. I don't want to load them all every day, only when they change and RSS gives me the ability to know when they have changed.

      5 years ago, I could surf for hours at a time. Now, I have read all the aritcles I want in about 30 minutes a day and still keep up with stuff just as much.
      • I couldn't agree with you more. I use Vienna RSS feeder extensively and rarely do I search websites for news. I even have an eye out on certain craigslist items.
      • I have about 20 different sites that I pay attention to. It takes a noticeable amount of time to go to all twenty sites.

        Same here. With Firefox, I just reload all my favourite tabs every day to see if anything's new. This gives the sites that I value regular page views (even if there's nothing new there recently it's an indication of what I value). Is that wrong? Or should I only visit sites that give me "new stuff to read" via RSS, no matter how fluffy?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Xtravar ( 725372 )
        Okay, now can someone please explain what the fuck is Feedburner and why the fuck it would be worth $100 million?

        I don't know. I go to their site and it looks like buzzword jibberish to me. I am so confused and angry right now that I might throw a freakin' chair. Seriously, this article summary sucks, and from the look of it Feedburner looks like it sucks too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by laffer1 ( 701823 )
      RSS isn't for everyone. I only use it for a limited number of sites. Most often I use it with slashdot to see if there are new stories I want to read. I can just hit the menu in firefox and see if I care about any story. Other sites like CNN.com are not quite as useful with RSS. They don't give you much information and the titles are often misleading. Plus, I refuse to watch stories that are video only with the exception of the WIFI story today. Their video feeds work only in a handful of configurati
    • When you get to 20+ sites that update rarely but that you want to follow regularly you'll get it. Saves lots of time.
    • I only have so many hours in a day, and I like to be fairly informed, so I subscribe to quite a few sites. In the course of a normal day, several hundred articles will come out. I usee RSS so that I can quickly browse through and pick out which stories to read.
  • I think this is a pretty good move on Google's part. They just acquired a large number of publishers that check the service daily and really care about their feed. The feedburner software and service runs VERY well and serves a real need. I wonder if they settled for too low of a purchase price, but I don't blame them for going for the cash. Lets hope their analytics gets bundled into google analytics for some really powerful (and hopefully free) stats.
  • ...lag behind Clicky which provide a better analytics service. But Feedburner is the RSS champ and Google would want to exploit it with Ads.

  • What is a feedburner? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @06:05PM (#19245385)
    Although I do not know what a feedburner is, I would like to formally announce (if any Microsofties are reading) that I am their #2 competitor with great things coming down the pipeline. My product leverages the newest mashup technologies to provide a very compelling value proposition, at an outstanding ROI, with an incredibly low TCO.

    You can have it, with no strings attached for 200 mil. (US $ naturally)

    • You can have it, with no strings attached for 200 mil. (US $ naturally)
      And here I was ready to offer that much but in Euros [google.com] or Pounds [google.com]. Looks like I'll have to pass up on that deal.
       
  • Feedburner has made great inroads in brokering advertising in RSS feeds. Google could easily reproduce what Feedburner has done, but in snatching Feedburner they also keep them from other prospective buyers.

  • All your accounts are belong to us (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday May 23, 2007 @07:26PM (#19246261) Homepage Journal
    Great. That's another new Google account I have to nuke to keep my personal stuff off this juggernaut. Methinks I need my own php/mysql server on the net somewhere so I can just write and host my own stuff.
  • Not to mention some consistency in the stats, being able to stay logged in across more than two pages and perhaps performance improvements in feed fetching.

    Honestly, I cannot see much point in using FB; the pain almost outweighs the benefits. The blogs that use FB for feed handling are all incredibly slow and unreliable to load in my feedreader. Perhaps Google will be able to throw a bit more hardware and bandwidth at solving that one for them, now.

    They simply cannot keep login sessions consistent across
  • ...that Google doesn't already have? I used Feedburner once a year or two ago (with my Blogger blog); as I remember, the really useful features they offered were conversion between Atom and RSS, and media enclosures for podcasts...

    Last I heard, Blogger has that now. Or perhaps Feedburner got new features too?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close