If you use this on other people's content, that doesn't really make any sense. Audio is not tech, its highly personal and you can't plagiarize the whole thing and claim it your own when the dude in question doesn't sound you at all. And unlike video which might present various things, podcast mostly centers on the presenter itself.
In other words, it kinda defeats the purpose to use this tool as a plagiarism tool since most podcast is created to create a following, around the presenter's voice.
Most of my favorite radio shows are now available as podcasts, including ESPN. These podcasts are generally available with 24 hours after the first radio broadcast. Broadcasters generally edit out the commercials that radio listeners hear. Some broadcasters also insert a few new ads, often at the beginning or end of a podcast.
Commercial radio broadcasters everywhere have enjoyed a long run of high profitability, but their business model is under threat now. The tradition of free podcasting doesn't fly with them. Podcasting as we know it may be over soon unless we take steps to preserve it.
We publish on iTunes through Libsyn as well as SoundCloud. Libsyn and SoundCloud provide analytics. It's not a paid podcast, but Patreon seems like one way to achieve that.
As a content creator I can't control what the platforms do. My best strategy is to diversify.
Wouldn't it be possible for podcasters to add some sort of protocol for paid podcasts that could be integrated into apps? Like "purchase URL" (or some sort of stripe-y token or anything).
I also don't really think that giving podcast producers playback data would be a bad thing. The thing that creeps me out the most about ad cookies on the web is the cross-domain tracking, but if we're talking about behavioural data for a podcast just to that producer, sounds like it could be a net benefit.
I feel like this post is mixing concepts (making paid content in podcast form more viable) with implementation details (Apple doing it). Though it's in response to the NYT article that does the same thing.
Feel like there's a lack of imagination, and there likely are ways to do things in a decentralised way
One thing to think about with this is to look at what Steam did with indie games. Valve basically made full-time indie game makers survive by essentially creating an easily discoverable platform. Nowadays there are a couple extra platforms (Humble Store, G2G), so it's not a monopoly, but people have been pretty clear that Steam is the major source of revenue by far.
Do we not want that for podcasting? Being able to pay directly for high-quality content, but also having the discoverable ecosystem.
If Apple decides to tackle this (they're really close to having this with iTunes, you can buy old TAL eps or the like), then it's going to be super closed and basically the app store.
If the golden age of indie games has proven anything, it's that supporting better discovery would be a net win to the quality of content going out there. Saying "oh, well we already have this through passworded feeds" is leaving the door open for a less open solution.
Instead of saying "no because this implementation is stupid", I would much rather hear Marco offer an alternative that could be open. Though I don't know his position on paid content, really. Rallying around a more open alternative is the best way to counter a closed solution.
Right now Apple is the best placed to build good discovery (iTunes already is that for free content), so somebody needs to step up to the plate if they want to avoid Apple's content rules becoming the norm.
I don't think anyone wants podcasting to end up like the App Store. This is the general premise of Marco's article.
Consider Marco has Overcast, he's in a _very_ good position to offer an alternative solution to the problem he's talking about though.
I wouldn't mind podcasting ending up like Steam/indie games in general. Everything's a lot better than it used to be in that domain.
I don't know what advertising rates come out at cost per listener but my gut feeling is that if ATP charged a dollar instead of doing ad reads they'd pull in more. And more importantly shows that have too small of an audience to be viable through ads could become viable.
Of course, like Jason said, you can already do this. But who wants to configure their billing info across 10 different websites?
I think Marco is fairly happy with how things are at the moment and doesn't want it to change. That's why he doesn't suggest anything.
It doesn't necessarily have to be on a technical level. Imagine the following:
- Company starts a "distribution network" (much like current ones) for paid podcasts. You sign up, get a personallised feed to all podcasts you are currently paying for. Passworded feed maybe.
- Overcast also searches this distribution network and points that this is a paid podcast, directs to website. Alternatively, people just go to this website because it has good content or whatever
- Other distribution networks do the same thing, offering different payment strategies/genres/whatever.
Basically no technical differences from before. Same feeds, nobody controls the distribution more than currently.
It could end up with one big player, but by moving forward and giving a viable path for people who want to make discoverable paid content ("Oh I'll just throw it up onto Podscription", name's a freebee for anyone who wants to do this).
If someone else does it and gains traction to reach a critical mass, suddenly Apple can not build a closed system for this.
But if nobody does it, and Apple suddenly says 'Oh, here's our iTunes Premier Podcasts. Tap into our existing audience (but only works in iOS Podcast player)' then it's game over.
Doing nothing is giving Apple this pathway if they ever want to do it. Helping to move an alternative forward for something in which there seems to be demand will block Apple from closing everything off.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if not... that is absolutely not what I have ever heard. The iTMS is brutal to independent artists and getting on it is a huge barrier to entry. It's perhaps an improvement from the 1990s system of record-label distribution (which perhaps keeps the complaints to a low volume; Apple can always point to that particular horror if the plebes get out of line), but it's in no way an open platform.
Most independent music I listen to tends to be hosted on Soundcloud, largely as a result of Apple's policies on the iTMS.
Judging by recent trends in media consumption (DRM, iTunes, Kindle, Audible, Netflix, Google Play, Facebook, etc), nobody is going to do that, the overall strategy being to lock-in users and screw them of any sense of control, portability and ownership and to milk publishers for all their worth.
Decentralized you say? That's wild imagination.
when I buy music off of iTunes or Google Play Music, I can download the MP3s for local copies.
I don't know how Netflix is any different than cable TV. It's not like HBO shipped you tapes after eps of the Sopranos.
This is a pretty good example of how much bad PR is generated from DRM. I heard it took 3 years after Apple removed all DRM from purchased content for people to mostly stop saying iTunes stuff was DRM'd.
And the purpose is to relieve the user of owned files replacing them with a streaming service, which is DRM enabled, losing access even to music for which the user owned the copyright upon cancellation. This is the essence of DRM, the user losing all control of his purchased content.
There is however something in the way you expressed yourself. Is this a strawman attempt?
And your accusations of bad faith are both infuriating and against the site rules.
this is some serious shitshow. i'm sorry but i don't have excuses anymore.
a) It required giving them my email or creating an account or some crap. That's an absolute deal breaker. I know they had some weird thing where it could generate an anonymous id or something, but it's not sufficient for me. I must be able to use the app with no further communication to the producer of the app.
b) I like using iTunes for Podcast discovery, and having a separate app makes that harder.
Also, looking at the website for Overcast now, it has social features like sharing podcasts on Twitter. WTF? I just want to listen to some shows I like. I don't want to give or share anything with anyone!
Is Marco referring to In-App purchases in apps and how it changed them? Or the book store, which I would find more compelling?
is a tossed off line referring to the travails of Marco and other developers who publicly complain about the app store. In particular:
Apple's 30% cut is probably the least significant but definitely not an insignificant concern.
More important would be the way Apple handles its role as a curator of content. The App Store doesn't sell every app which is submitted. Apps can be rejected for quality or for content. Should a podcast be rejected because it is a low fi unedited recording of two guys hanging out and talking into shitty microphones? Or because it contains adult content?
Perhaps most importantly is the App Store's notoriously bad relationship with developers. What qualifies as appropriate "content" and "quality" is not always clear, and Apple doesn't strictly follow its own guidelines. If your app is rejected it is basically impossible to appeal and often unclear how it needs to be changed to be accepted.
Sorry Marco, you chose the wrong centralized OS platform for your vision of a decentralized podcast future.
If you're going to make a post calling Marco some sort of platform biased fanboy, you should refrain from being a platform biased fanboy.
It doesn't matter what OS your phone runs, the proposed changes are huge threats to today's podcast ecosystem and the opportunities it presents for small podcasts to get a foothold.
Contrast that to the AppStore, which for the most part is a race to the bottom. The only people directly making money are the skinner-box game developers and Apple.
Podcasts are a great anti-Amazon weapon -- they displace Audible and radio. So it won't be ignored for long. I sincerely hope that Apple uses Podcasts as a model for a better AppStore, not another place to setup a toll booth for their 30% vig.
As anti-trust in the EU is also focused on competition, I could imagine that the EU comission might also take an interest in Apple in such a scenario.
I also doubt that Apple actually is going to do anything. Whatever profit they might be able to gain is probably not worth the risk.
Is this a choice based on the quality of the Android developer platform, the Android market realities, or simply a religious devotion to the Apple ecosystem?
 See: https://blog.shiftyjelly.com/2013/02/20/why-android-first/