Advice: don't brag about how little time it took you to create this, it makes it sound like you aren't taking it seriously. This looks like a legitimately good product. There is a (rather high) chance that FeedBurner goes away, and if that happens you sit in a nice position to take some of the business, so I'd start presenting this is a real service.
I tend to agree with this. I'm genuinely on the lookout for a service to replace Feedburner.
Buffer is often called "just a cron job" and I can assure you much of the work is in scaling up "just a crob job" to hundreds of thousands of users (alongside all the other aspects of the product). So I know first hand that "building a replacement" is not the hard part of the task. I certainly want to trust that you guys can scale this up and be a reliable host of my feed.
Our current FeedBurner feed has over 600,000 subscribers (don't ask) most days of the week. We know the difficulties of hosting constantly-updating info that's requested once a minute by hundreds of thousands of users: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~fc/neosmart
The site is still in the early stages, more features are coming in very soon. Some geeky info: powered by ASP.NET MVC, S3, RDS, EC2, CloudFront and soon, Redis for real-time analytics (currently a custom in-memory data structure). Backend was implemented in around a week of non-stop work.
We've been using FeedBurner since 2004, and were huge fans of one of the coolest startups to come from our hometown, Chicago. We also know what it means to have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, our own feed has over 600,000 subscribers constantly making requests for content (don't ask). As the blogpost explains, we would love to take this further and delve into the intricate world of feed indexing but want to take the time to gauge demand and get a feel for the bigger picture. Feedback is most welcome.
> FeedSnap's goal is simple: to provide a reliable, capable, and actively maintained FeedBurner replacement for your beloved RSS feed.
In keeping with that goal, is there any chance that you will open source the work you've done under a GPLv3 license? Perhaps the largest problem is that every service claims to be "reliable, capable, and actively maintained" until it isn't.
Would you mind expanding upon why you presumably prefer GPLv2 over v3? Additionally, if you prefer the MIT/BSD licensing model, why not choose Apache v2?
Apache is fine, too (though there aren't any patents involved so it has no real advantage). Apache v2, BSD, MIT, are all in the same open spirit - Apache is just more explicit about what it gives away.
It's important to understand that when FSF talks about "freedom" they explicitly mean keeping the users free - not the developers. As a developer, I'm personally biased towards being free to other developers, and I think GPL (v2 and esp. v3) are very much pro-user at the cost of being anti-developer.
> It's important to understand that when FSF talks about "freedom" they explicitly mean keeping the users free - not the developers. As a developer, I'm personally biased towards being free to other developers, and I think GPL (v2 and esp. v3) are very much pro-user at the cost of being anti-developer.
I don't think that's what the FSF means when they talk about freedom. Freedom is about keeping everyone free--developers and users alike. Copyleft licenses ensure that all derivative works be subject to the same licensing terms as the original work. It's a way to protect the self-perpetuating nature of free software that more permissive licenses fail to achieve.
Do you offer domain mapping? I can't trust that you'll be around six months from now, so I don't want to send all of my readers to an address based on your domain name.
1) Don't send your readers to our address, use a 302 redirect from your old feed unless the useragent is FeedSnap (plugins for popular platforms to do this automagically coming this way soon)
We haven't determined that yet. Probably a free tier then more as you go up. We're planning on figuring that out based off of the costs-per-subscriber incurred over the next few months. I completely understand that this is less than ideal from a perspective customer's point of view, and I only wish we had a more concrete price point at this time.
A sample feed would be really nice (particularly for the "prettier feeds" point). The "because rss isn't dead yet" at the footer looked like it'd be one, but it isn't.
I've been worried about this, ever since their acquisition. However, if they shutdown FeedBurner, there would be a LOT of broken links suddenly left on the web. Kind of like bit.ly or tinyurl suddenly disappearing. I imagine the public backlash from this makes it a bit more tricky for Google to drop FeedBurner, than it was to drop Reader.
