Isn't this something like pre-mature optimization? Most services (like Blogger for example) haven't shut down yet and probably won't. So, just because Google didn't support some open source protocol, doesn't mean we should suddenly decide to move away from a service that's really been good so far.
If the service is good enough, then why bother switching providers? At the end of the day all businesses want to profit . Also, it's a matter of personal preference - Some like Gmail and some like Hotmail. But moving away from a really good provider because it doesn't provide a 'feature X' (unless it impacts you in anyway and makes it unusable) then I see no point in moving away at all.
Because you see the trend coming. I just logged in my Picasa web albums a few days ago after a long time and now it defaults into Google + photos BS. The problem is, there are no more RSS feeds in Google + Photos. So I Have to use Google + to get access to these pictures, unless I revert to Picasa Web Albums. But it's clear Google will kill off Picasa Web Albums down the road and the RSS feeds for your pictures as well. It goes against my interest as a user, so I will actively be looking for ways out of Google as well. It's not a "win-win" situation anymore.
And what online service are you going to find that a) stays up forever and b) never radically changes the UI? Let's say you find a photo hosting service to does RSS feeds, what guarantees to you have it'll last longer than Google? For christsakes, Reader lasted 8 years for a free service, there are many non-advertising/pay-fee services that have not lasted that long.
If the service is good enough, then why bother switching providers? At the end of the day all businesses want to profit . Also, it's a matter of personal preference - Some like Gmail and some like Hotmail. But moving away from a really good provider because it doesn't provide a 'feature X' (unless it impacts you in anyway and makes it unusable) then I see no point in moving away at all.