The more work I do parsing and aggregating feeds, the more annoyed I am with Google’s Feedburner published feeds (part 1).
As you know, I don’t see the need for Feedburner and believe their useful services (metrics, being smart about enclosures and tags, etc) is more effectively done within the weblog/publishing software1 for 99% of the feeds they serve.
Looking at iTunes, Feedburner, and Twitter feeds, you’d think it was called RHS, not RSS.
Chances are, if you’re reading this, your weblog could publish the same feed Feedburner does with far less complexity and provide you with the same value.
For a more strategic view: Google’s Feedburner is Trouble – Dave Winer
Later:
In the comments, Luke posits another point of value. But, I don’t have to pay for people reading my Amazon book reviews either.
1. Or a stats program that understands both pageviews and file downloads. These numbers aren’t big enough to have useful value anyway. Just not enough 0s to pitch to advertisers.
I hate how Google indexes RSS feeds and returns the XML version in regular search results. Bleh.
But FeedBurner does provide something very valuable: you don’t have to pay for the bandwidth for downloads of your feed.