[dajohnson89]

adding rss feeds to (say) google reader doesn't require technical expertise. email newsletters require your email address, which is obviously prone to abuse and spam. newsletters aren't the new rss, but rather an arguably inferior replacement.

[mmahemoff]

"x is the new y" indeed means it's not the same thing, but a replacement (inferior or otherwise).

The fact someone took the time to understand why they should care about Google Reader, set it up, and regularly used it does require some technical interest/ability. That's why most internet users didn't know what RSS was even at the peak of the blogging and RSS revolution circa 2005, whereas today (or even back then), everyone intuitively understands newsletters.

I'm not saying they're better for everyone, frankly they are far worse for regular readers in my view, but they're the clearest successor.

[marcus_holmes]

ah, but newsletters allow you to serve adverts, which is really why RSS "died".

[mmahemoff]

And charging a recurring fee is also viable now in the age of patronage. It's more standard than charging for a premium RSS feed and easy for publishers on various systems to set up.

[captainmuon]

Nothing stops you from putting ads in RSS.

I personally think RSS was killed when social networks shifted to social media...