My take on the RSS-renaissance chestnut: The original sin is the name. Only clueless nerds could come up with such a soporific, opaque, geeky moniker as "RSS". It should have been called "Webfeed". Then there would be no explaining to do.

> If you have to explain it, there is zero chance of massive adoption.

Here's the thing, one should not need to explain it no mire. Devices or applications accessing content with an RSS option should present it to the end user through a convenient interface.

I'm happily using RSS despite you needing an explanation. Funny how that works.

I've been calling it 'Really Social Sites' for a long time. ;)

It just needs to be described in a more concrete way to people. Such as, You know how the podcasts you listen to keep getting updated on your phone? That's RSS. Imagine if other things you liked turned up when they were new and you had a lot of control over that process.