We Lose A Lot When Podcasts Go Closed Instead Of Open (techdirt.com) 63
Mike Masnick, writing at TechDirt: Last year, when Spotify purchased a bunch of podcast companies, we worried that it foretold the end of the open world of podcasting. You can get a Spotify account for free, but unlike most podcast apps, you can't get any podcast you want via Spotify. Spotify has to agree to host it, and as a podcast you have to "apply" (indeed, Techdirt's own podcast was initially rejected by Spotify, though has since been let in). That's a "closed, but free" setup. Most podcasts are both open and free -- published as open MP3 files, using an open RSS feed that any regular podcast app can grab.
Spotify, so far, hadn't done much to close off the podcasts that it had purchased, but perhaps that's changing. Earlier this week it was announced that one of (if not) the most popular podcasts in the world, Joe Rogan's, would now be moving exclusively to Spotify. News reports have said that Spotify paid over $100 million to get Rogan's podcast on board, while some have put the number closer to $200 million. While it's totally understandable why Rogan would take that deal (who wouldn't?), it does remain a sad day for the concept of an open internet. When we lock up content into silos, we all lose out. The entire concept of podcasts came from the open nature of the internet -- combining MP3s and RSS to make it all work seamlessly and enabling anyone to just start broadcasting. The entire ecosystem came out of that, and putting it into silos and locking it up so that only one platform can control it is unfortunate.
I'm sure it will get many people to move to Spotify's podcasting platform, though, and that means those that do offer open podcasting apps (most others) will suffer, because most people aren't going to want to use two different podcast apps. Even if the initial economics make sense, it still should be seen as a sad day for the open internet that enabled podcasting to exist in the first place.
Spotify, so far, hadn't done much to close off the podcasts that it had purchased, but perhaps that's changing. Earlier this week it was announced that one of (if not) the most popular podcasts in the world, Joe Rogan's, would now be moving exclusively to Spotify. News reports have said that Spotify paid over $100 million to get Rogan's podcast on board, while some have put the number closer to $200 million. While it's totally understandable why Rogan would take that deal (who wouldn't?), it does remain a sad day for the concept of an open internet. When we lock up content into silos, we all lose out. The entire concept of podcasts came from the open nature of the internet -- combining MP3s and RSS to make it all work seamlessly and enabling anyone to just start broadcasting. The entire ecosystem came out of that, and putting it into silos and locking it up so that only one platform can control it is unfortunate.
I'm sure it will get many people to move to Spotify's podcasting platform, though, and that means those that do offer open podcasting apps (most others) will suffer, because most people aren't going to want to use two different podcast apps. Even if the initial economics make sense, it still should be seen as a sad day for the open internet that enabled podcasting to exist in the first place.
Story of everything (Score:3)
You built an Internet, but they wanted the ARPAnet back.
Re:Story of everything (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it comes from "pod" which are what whales live in. A pod cast is a limited-interest broadcast going out to your pod, or group of intimates who listen to your broadcasts and share your interests.
Do a Google ngram search and you'll find people using it in print before Ben Hammersley, and using it correctly.
Hammersley made the mistake of thinking it was related to the iPod (which also stole its name from podcasting) because that device just happened to be popular when he first learned the world, and his mistake has made fools like you repeat it (and ride Jobs' dick) ever since.
Never forget that Jobs stole literally everything about Apple from somewhere else. None of it is original work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Literally nothing. Capitalism is absurd, and the patent system one of the most odiously absurd facets.
Re: (Score:2)
Define 100%. Is a concept sufficient enough, or am I not allowed to use transistors or plastic because I didn't invent them?
Concepts can build on prior art, but quite critically it is important to never forget that prior art. It's there to learn from, otherwise the end goal is that you only ever develop a new concept from a concept from a concept, and pretty soon every phone on the market is a glass scree with curved bezel, and a hole in it and no one actually looks at how different various phones could pos
Re: (Score:2)
Literal Copypasta from something I wrote a couple days ago.
TL;DR the multiplication of subscription services makes it easy to cut out things that we don't really value.
_____________________
Global Demand for "Subscription" services makes it much easier to cut the cruft and focus on the things that we're really valuing or otherwise can get elsewhere for Free. Even the bigger companies are looking to enhance revenue streams are having a hard time getting the economics to work right. Even YouTube is cutting tie
Re: (Score:3)
If it a free service then chances are YOU are the product.
Aids is free too -- doesn't mean I want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, YouTube being free means they data-mined the fuck out of it and are profiting off your data.
The difference is that the fewer services we use the better we can "poison our usage data."
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a lot of horror and adult movies started out with this exact principal...
Re: (Score:3)
Same reason Free to Play model exists at all.
Community engagement expands the community, and a small portion of community pays. The more free users you have, the more paying users are lured in.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Yes another trivial problem (Score:2)
Agree with this. I donâ(TM)t listen/watch JRE because I seek it out. I do so because YouTube also has determined I like it and keeps suggesting it to me.
(Mind you, there are podcasts I do actively seek out. But JRE is not one of them.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you were a fan of Joe Rogan's podcast:
piracy to the rescue!
What do we lose exactly? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A free and open internet means that there's still a way to steal all the "paid" content, if you're smart.
Spotify is closed, but YouTube is an open closed p (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Spotify is closed, but YouTube is an open close (Score:4, Funny)
Seems like Joe was sick of YouTube demonizing his videos.
I think the $100million contract probably swayed his opinion a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is starting to realize some content has to be paywalled... they've got about three add-on packs these days!
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube has a huge amount of closed "pay to view" content. Did you know that they host a huge amount of hollywood movies?
Almost no one wants it, because things like Netflix already exist for such content, and offer a much better model for it for most people.
Re: (Score:3)
They are paying him $100m to switch, far more than he was ever making from YouTube. His entire yearly income was about $30m at its peak and only a fraction of that was YouTube. He was TV shows, merchandise, appearances, sponsorship...
Network Security podcast (Score:2)
> News reports have said that Spotify paid over $100 million to get Rogan's podcast on board, while some have put the number closer to $200 million.
Hey everyone, check out my new Network Security podcast. :D
Please subscribe.
So what? (Score:2)
The people who actually make the podcast gain money. In the end that's the reason for it all.
Anything to get away from Youtube (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as it helps people get away from YouTube, it's a good thing. Joe Rogan's show is deliberately blocked from YouTube's "Trending" tab in America. They also put their finger on the scale for other "inconvenient" independent content producers, from hiding them in the search results to suppressing them.
Once the champion of the little guy - hence the name, YOU tube - YouTube now openly wishes the little guy would stop talking. Today YouTube admits boosting mainstream media channels over individualsâ(TM) videos even though users watch less of them and it makes them lose money. [reclaimthenet.org] They don't want your money, though. YouTube isn't even profitable to Google, they earn profit through other services. They want control over you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Which completely explains why show #1477 is listed in Trending [youtube.com] right now.
Sure they do. I completely trust your already-proven-false post concerning YouTube's practices.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's Trending, for God's sake. His week plus old shows won't be trending, and why must every show be trending?
No, no, and no. Three strikes and you're out.
He makes the Trending tab in America too. Like anyone in America can see. Right now. Like you just did.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got karma to burn, people.
Which completely explains why show #1477 is listed in Trending [youtube.com] right now.
Sure they do. I completely trust your already-proven-false post concerning YouTube's practices.
No RSS, no Podcast! (Score:1)
Without RSS it should be called something else than Podcast.
Those evil people... (Score:2)
actually wanting to make money off of their effort. How dare they?
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, I think the "Internet is free' will be the seminal, and terrible idea that brought us the crap-Net we have today. We should have been paying for news, paying for entertainment, paying for software, paying for everything just like we did pre-Net. Ideally the cost of these goods and services would be less, since you didn't need the whole physical distribution model, but priced nonetheless.
Blame it on the media industries that wanted to keep prices the same for digital and physical, blame it on
Re:Those evil people... (Score:4, Interesting)
You're not wrong, edi_guy.
As one of the earliest podcasters, I also struggled with how to pay for it, but as a non-profit, I managed for almost 3 years through grants and donations. Selling subscriptions to listeners for access to extra content wasn't as successful. Micropayments might have been one of the better systems. Whoring for advertisers, as an alternative, makes for a pretty bleak existence.
I think we're more likely to be stuck with the Netflix model of a few gatekeeper aggregators charging a subscription fee. In such a model those aggregators have ultimate power over what gets distributed. That's sad, because it creates the same kind of narrowing of discourse and limiting of perspectives that we had when there were only a few large TV networks.
I liked to blame Apple back when I produced a show, because when they first brought podcasts to iTunes, they had the heft and the resources to implement a micropayments system.
But as a consumer who's no longer a producer, I'll argue that if a show is exclusively on Spotify, instead of openly available for any RSS reader to download, then it's no longer a "podcast", but rather some other proprietary distribution method. It may be an Internet-transmitted audio or video program, but it is NOT a podcast.
Re: (Score:2)
You really feel like arguing about the precise definition of a word that was invented less than 30 years ago and coopted to a different definition so that well over 95% of the people using the word use the new definition is a productive use of your time?
Might as well start arguing about hacker again.
Blame it on ... (Score:2, Interesting)
> Historically, I think the "Internet is free' will be the seminal, and terrible idea that brought us the crap-Net we have today. We should have been paying ...
> Blame it on the media industries that wanted to keep prices the same for digital and physical, blame it on credit card companies for thwarting micro-payments. blame it on AOL for bundling
I was there working with a lot of different web sites in the 1990s, lots of sites trying lots of different revenue models. A series of issues got us to wher
it's ALWAYS about the money (Score:2)
and the fact that it's always about the money is why it has ALWAYS been about making the internet closed.
And so it goes...
Re: (Score:2)
According to the latest information, this assumption is partially false. There was an interesting tidbit where Rogan apparently called Tim Pool during his podcast, and basically gave him an interview on the topic. In it, he apparently stated that youtube not only didn't protest it when he warned them that he'll have Jones on his last podcast with him, but they even monetized the video.
It mostly seems to be "they bitch, demonetize and ban whatever far left SanFran community has a problem with that month". Jo
Jokes on him (Score:1)
Do we really? (Score:2)
What makes podcasting great is that anybody can do it well with a little preparation and a $100 bucks worth of microphones and foam.
Rogan.. SGN... who's next (Score:4, Interesting)
This falls on the same week when Some Good News was sold outright to CBS All Access, removing it from YouTube.
We went from Free MPEGs, to YouTube and such, now as paywalled.
Just the would moving on here... everybody wants to get paid!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the process of "popular podcast goes behind a paywall" has been ongoing for years at this point. There's a lot of medium sized podcasts on things like patreon for example.
Rogan's dumping Google (Score:1)
The real news about Rogan going to Spotify is that a major talent has taken his listeners away from the de-platforming SJW's at Google, not that it is no longer "public".
Agree, but (Score:2)
Rogan smelled a rat (Score:4, Informative)
In recent times YouTube has been censoring or demonetizing content that they deemed inappropriate. If it is just some dumb cat video with 5,000 views then big deal but if you have a podcast like Rogans' with millions of views then it is a very big deal.
To me it's a lot like when Howard Stern went to satellite radio. Yes, it is a big pay day but it is also a way to retain creative control over his content. I'm pretty sure that Spotify told Rogan to just keep doing what he's doing.
As far as following him to Spotify I'll probably just find something else to listen to and watch. Not really looking to add any new apps to my phone.
Stop giving your mindshare to "closed" podcasts (Score:1)
In The Morning! (Score:1)
I'd suggest any nerd-types who may be around look into the SW stack and donation model of podcasts like No Agenda ( http://www.noagendashow.com/ [noagendashow.com] - sorry not feeling like dealing w/HTML right now).
Open-source software distributing a system of podcasts funded by producer donations (if you contribute, you care, and can get some minor input into the show, hence "producers"). Where I struggle is "how to get a normal person to understand that this is much better than the censored (self- or otherwise) drivel th
There goes his international audience (Score:2)
Spotify has serious problems with podcast searches as they default to the local language of the device based on network. I can't find podcasts I regularly listen to when I'm on my work wifi as the entire system switches to German, I can barely find English ones at all when I'm on LTE since everything defaults to Dutch.
Even as a Spotify fiend I still listen to podcasts mostly by streaming them from Youtube.
This is why Luminary doesn't work (Score:1)
This is why Luminary doesn't work.
I'm fine with paying for certain podcasts, usually via Patreon and it's custom RSS feeds that give me extra episodes, but force me to use a substandard podcast app and you're out of luck!