Comments on: Feed a Fever, Without Starving Your RSS Reader

By: Rarst

Rarst — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:13:02 +0000

Seeing lots of mentions lately. I think this is way more of a toy for webmasters than something regular user will buy, install and use.

On free budget nothing beats cleaning up in subscription from time to time.

Btw for tracking important stuff I am quite content with watches in FeedDemon. But I also extended them with AutoIt script that can edit keywords externally.

By: BloggerDaily

BloggerDaily — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:41:54 +0000

Looks nice.. but I guess most people will prefer the free one.

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:56:33 +0000

Iman: I think you're misunderstanding what Fever does. It's not like FeedBurner, which hosts and tracks YOUR feed, but it is a program, like Google Reader or Bloglines that lets you read and organize other feeds. The goal of Fever is not to maintain other feeds, but to let you track other sites.

As such, I don't think there is any way to really compare the two.

Richael: Agreed all around It seems to me that they may be catering to a niche market when their product could reach much more broad appeal.

By: Richael | Domain Mar

Richael | Domain Mar — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:37:17 +0000

As you mentioned, a hosted version of fever will definitely spark great interest amongst regular feed readers. The feature list of fever seems quite impressive, but people will still be reluctant to pay $30 for it…feeds are meant to be free, right?

By: iman

iman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:07:13 +0000

i think i feedburner is still the best feed, because i dont like to pay for fever..

what do you think? do you prefer fever or feedburner?