Instead they chose AMP for lock-in.
And because it made sense for their business of selling ads
Sponsorship is a poor substitute for subscriptions and ads.
> RSS feeds are, you know, ultimately web pages, analytics are relatively trivial.
No, the aggregator that shows the RSS results has no standard way of reporting to the publisher who viewed which RSS entries.
It seems to me that you're arguing that publishers -- or in practice, ad networks -- are entitled to track the browsing habits of specific individuals, even if (theoretically) anonymized. If so, I rather strongly disagree.
Wrong. The RSS entries are cached by the aggregators, and the publisher never sees how many people have seen them.
> It seems to me that you're arguing that publishers -- or in practice, ad networks -- are entitled to track the browsing habits of specific individuals, even if (theoretically) anonymized.
No. I'm saying that AMP takes less control away from publishers than RSS does, and all the complaints are about how AMP takes control from publishers to ruin the web, yet nobody here has complained about how RSS ruined the web. In either case, the system controlling the cache tracks everything.
Aggregators like NewsBlur, Feedly, and Feedbin pass on subscriber counts. I am literally looking at my own FeedPress dashboard in another window right now. I promise I have the analytics I say I do, cross my heart.
As for AMP, I'm not sure I see how AMP takes less control away from publishers than RSS does. There's nothing that stops anyone from running an RSS reader which directly hits each web site they subscribe to. Aggregators may be more convenient but they're not mandatory, and this seems to me to be a pretty important architectural difference. Even if we grant that RSS is pretty difficult to monetize, AMP takes my content and cuts me out of any monetization possibility entirely -- and Google may punish me in search rankings if I don't let them do that. Surely you see why that's going to raise some hackles that RSS doesn't?
They do not pass them back in a standard way. If there is a new aggregator, the publisher has to integrate with them for analytics.
> As for AMP, I'm not sure I see how AMP takes less control away from publishers than RSS does.
I already told you in the very first comment you replied to.
RSS is strictly worse for publishers than AMP. Apple News is strictly worse for publishers than AMP. Apple News has some advantages (monetization, analytics) over RSS and some disadvantages (single company integration). Yet nobody on HN complains about Apple News or RSS because they don't understand the technology.
That's a good thing.
That said, I do see an awful lot of RSS feeds that include tracking pixels, advertising JS, and all the other assorted nastiness, so I don't think RSS is precluding those.
Also, there is nothing anti-user about prerendering less, saving battery and network bandwidth.