GMail Getting RSS Aggregation Feature?

pramodbiligiri writes "Some blogs are saying that a few GMail users can see a "Web Clips" part at the top of their inbox, where you can subscribe to RSS feeds and view them. Evan Williams, formerly of Blogger.com has a screenshot More on this at Gmail Adding Feed Reading and Google inches closer to RSS"

Comments

Re:Again with Google!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Such animus, Mr. Gates...

Re:Again with Google!?!

[Uptown Joe]

Google: "my ass" http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-07,GGLD:en&q=my+ass

Re:Simple piece of code

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

It shouldn't be google this, google that and google everthing.

You're new here, aren't you?

Everytime Google takes a shit /. covers it.

GoogleDot

[wiredog]

Taco's going to cash in. Again.

Wow... Slashdot's such a Google slut

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Slashdot... in your throat sore from sucking Google's prick all day?

Oh, you got a little something on your chin...

Gooooooogle everywhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

So many articles about Google in such a short time makes suspicious! Does /. or CmdrTaco hold any Google shares?

(The answer "Who doesn't?!" doesn't count)

Re:Concentrate on more important features first

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be happy they implemented POP3 to begin with. To put it simply: You are not paying for GMail. IMAP lets you avoid the ads (as does POP3). As such, you shouldn't expect it. It may also be that GMail stores your emails in such a way that implementing IMAP would be difficult.

GMail doesn't allow receiving ZIP and RAR attachme

[Anonymous Coward]

GMail doesn't allow receiving ZIP, RAR or EXE attachments. There is no option to configure this.

So, GMail is USELESS to most developers.

How hard can it be to add this option (somewhere in settings)?

Google doesn't add it. So, in my book Google is also evil. They don't care about a large part of the customers which made GMail very popular (bloggers, developers). They just want to make money from the ads they put in GMail.

Re:Concentrate on more important features first

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah. IMAP is superfluous when the web interface is better than your mail client anyway, and you don't have to rely on the crutch of filtering when you've got the bionic mecha-suit of Google Search to sort through your inbox. Bring on the RSS, I say!

Could you be any less specific?

[Otto]

I'm a little worried about the hype surrounding them, though. I'm not so much worried about anything google has done, or said they plan to do, as about the hype. People keep speculating about how google will be a platform, and how great it will be when they keep all of your data on their servers, and anyone with a web browser can get at it.

The problem with that is that it's a big step backwards from microsoft, freedom wise. The google guys seem like nice guys, and they have their famous "don't be evil" motto and all of that. But the point of all of the whole open source thing is freedom -- it's having control over your own computer and your own data.

So what, exactly, has Google done or appeared to do or might be planning to do that takes said freedom away from you? I mean, if you don't want them to store your data, then don't put your data there. You don't *have* to use Google's services.

I guess I'm just not entirely sure what you're really complaining about here.

Google is a like a good and just king. They don't bully people, they don't make threats, they don't throw their weight around. But they are slowly and surely consolidating a lot of control over the flow of information, generally speaking, in the world. That's scary as hell. They've never done anything that makes me think that they have evil designs. But it's still scary.

So, Google is scary because they sat down, wrote software that let them get a whole bunch of information, and then wrote a bunch of software to provide that information to other people in various ways/means/formats.

I have only one word, and that word is: what-the-fuck? Okay, so yeah, they've got a lot of data. So what? Why is that scary *at all*?

Most of what they do is as an aggregation source. They get data from all sorts of places, sort it, collate it, apply various transformations and such to it, and then present it in useful formats. They are not a content producer, they are a content aggregator. They're probably the *best* content aggregator out there, and certainly they're the largest. But I still fail to understand why having a lot of information and the power to process that information is potentially "bad" in any way.

What's going to happen when the current management dies or retires? What if they get kicked out? Jobs got kicked out of Apple?

I don't mean to suggest that we should be terrified of google, or that we should think of them as a negative force in the world. But a more sophisticated inquiry into what's happening and what the long term consequences of it might be is certainly appropriate.

What, exactly, could Google do that is so god-awful scary? I'm asking for speculation here, because while it's one thing to be paranoid, it's another to be paranoid with a just reason. I don't see any just reason here, because I don't see that they have any world-dominating possibilities, myself. Yes, yes, information is power, but that's a bullshit throwaway line... *Control* of information is power, and Google doesn't really control shit in that respect. They aggregate information, they don't produce it.

In particular, whiz-bang "gee, google came out with a new free-beer gadget that I love!" articles don't help much. I don't know that they hurt that much, but they don't help.

They certainly help me find out about Google's new whiz-bang gadgetry. Because hey, they produce some cool stuff that I use a lot. So yeah, I'd say that these articles are quite helpful.