Apple Plans to Bankroll Original Podcasts to Fend Off Rivals

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/apple-plans-to-bankroll-original-podcasts-to-fend-off-rivals

by MBCook • 7 years ago

163 174 7 years ago

MBCook5• 7 years ago

This is very unfortunate. Apple being totally hands off, other than running the iTunes podcast directory, is one of the best things that’s ever happened for podcasts.

I like my 3rd party app (Overcast). I don’t want to have to use 3 podcast apps to listen to all my podcasts.

I think I agree with some of the podcast app developers: if it’s not available in any app it shouldn’t be called a ‘podcast’.

jfengel2• 7 years ago

Kind of ironic, since the name "podcast" comes from the Apple iPod. If anybody would have first dibs on the name "podcast", it's them.

saipenguin• 7 years ago

Sure, but their opportunity to claim those dibs passed years ago.

Wowfunhappy2• 7 years ago

Perhaps, but Podcasts began outside of Apple. It was several years before Apple decided to officially support them in iTunes.

godzillabrennus• 7 years ago

That in and of itself is kind of ironic since the iPod has been all but relegated to the annals of history.

ihuman5• 7 years ago

Apple didn't create the term podcast, though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p038m811

microdrum3• 7 years ago

Although I personally don’t like Overcast because of the ad injection (which I consider immoral) and the hypocrisy of its author being anti-ads in general (not to mention having built Tumblr, which turned out to be a porn obfuscation service), I agree that this is a bad move by Apple. Doesn’t matter: podcasts are going to go the way of TV, radio, and movies anyway.

Jgrubb• 7 years ago

Did you purchase the $10 in app option to turn ads off?

lukebitts• 7 years ago

What is a "porn obfuscation service"?

stetrain• 7 years ago

Ad injection?

As far as I know Overcast does not inject ads into podcasts. There are banner ads within the app but that's not "injection"

fetus8• 7 years ago

I've been using Overcast, and have noticed that with certain podcasts, the audio ad-breaks seem to come in the middle of sentences, and there's no segue from podcast content to ad-read. Is that what you're referring to by "ad injection"? Or is just that the creator sucks at editing?

scarface744• 7 years ago

Overcast doesn’t insert ads into podcasts. Marco objected to including mystery meat binary blobs where he didn’t control the code or ads being served. He controls both the code and the ads for Overcast.

reaperducer4• 7 years ago

Form what I read in the article it doesn't sound all that terrible. If Apple were to remove all non-Apple podcasts from its platform, that would be bad. This is just Apple supplementing what's already available.

It's very much like Apple rolling out original television shows on the AppleTV. It's not like HBO is getting kicked out.

It makes sense to me that Apple would do this. Since it's making podcasts a separate program on the Mac, it wants to make it more popular and useful.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing stopping another person, company, or organization from producing podcasts that blow Apple's offerings out of the water and still distributing them through Apple. When that happens, I'll worry. Until then, this seems like an OK way to draw attention to podcasts as a whole.

MBCook5• 7 years ago

Apple having original podcasts, EVEN IF FREE, means there are now two classes of citizens on its platform. First class (Apple stuff), and ‘the rest’.

And I don’t trust that ‘the rest’ will continue to get good treatment like they have. It’s too easy to stop featuring big podcasts from companies who are now your podcast competitors.

Basically they’re losing their neutrality.

marmada• 7 years ago

What is the difference between exclusive podcasts and making a website that only runs on Safari?

In both scenarios it is a company giving their product an artificial advantage. There's no technical reason that a website should only run on one browser, it kind of feels the same way with podcasts.

Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that, so I guess my viewpoint is contradictory.

arkades• 7 years ago

Spotify became a second class citizen on my phone once Apple started sinking money into Music.

I have good podcast apps. I want them supported, not crippled because they suddenly became apple’s competitors.

Swenrekcah2• 7 years ago

Completely agree that if it’s not accessible on any app then it’s not a podcast. I also would pay for a podcast app that could guarantee that the audio file was the same for all listeners.

snailmailman2• 7 years ago

I wish the later could be possible. I have no idea how podcast-ads work but lately i noticed some podcasts giving me seemingly location-dependent ads. (about something in a nearby major city)

either everyone is getting advertisements for a very dallas targeted ad, or are the podcast companies making several versions of the podcast and serving different ones to different people? sounds like a lot of extra work to me, but I suppose its not hard to automate stitching a few ads into an audio file.

chrisrhoden5• 7 years ago

Real question - is it dynamic ads that bug you, or the implication that there is some personal tracking motivating the dynamic ads (rather than, say, calendar based ad buys or impression limits)?

gsich• 7 years ago

Similar view: If there is no RSS feed then it's not a podcast.

neves3• 7 years ago

I see a lot of good podcast apps for Apple but I couldn't find a nice one for Android. I would like to pay for one, but I can't a reasonable one that allows me to make my playlists and speed listen without drowning me in ads. Sure I can spend hours trying each one of the dozens, but would my fellow HN have any suggestion?

nyc640• 7 years ago

Have you tried Pocket Casts? Any reason it doesn’t work for you?

dageshi• 7 years ago

I've used Podcast Addict for years, I don't use playlists or change the playback speed but after just checking it looks like you can do both.

julianz• 7 years ago

Pocket Casts. End of story. It has speed settings and silence trimming, playlists, syncs across devices, and you pay for it so there's no ads.

ufo3• 7 years ago

AntennaPod is a fantastic FOSS podcast app for android. It doesn't have in-app purchases, advertisements or other such misfeatures.

There is a speed setting that speeds things up without sounding distorted. You can toggle between a configurable list of speeds (I switch between 1.0x and 1.15x depending on the podcast). I just wish it would remember different speeds for each podcast -- currently the speed behaves as a global setting.

The UI is set up so that when you download a new episode it goes into the reproduction queue. I don't think it has playlists but in my experience being able to reorder the episodes in the queue is all I need because I rarely listen to the same episode twice.

tallanvor• 7 years ago

I've been using DoggCatcher for years. Searching for podcasts to subscribe to could use some work, but I don't do that very often anyway. They don't show any ads either.

walshemj• 7 years ago

If your doing it professionally or even as a serious amateur its a "show"

NowThenGoodBad• 7 years ago

Apple's podcast app used to be great. I used to be able to easily subscribe and download all the episodes for a show, navigate to any show, and get back to what I was listening to all in a few taps.

As it stands now, if you want to add all of the episodes from a show that you have listened to for the past 14 years that somehow was not subscribed to on your device, you have to go to the show and subscribe, go to available episodes and tap on the + next to every.single.episode and even then sometimes episodes get lost.

You can set the custom settings to download all available, but it won't download the episodes of a subscribed podcast if you haven't explicitly added them (tap that + sign)

Also, can we just set the screen podcast app opens on to our own choice? I literally have to go through an extra menu just to see my show listing. Yes, I've created a "station" for the shows but that's immensely inconvenient if I want to listen to one show continuously without having to navigate to the shows page (guess I have to create a station for every show...)

I don't think the Apple funded shows will be bad. This article really seems to be creating a mountain out of nothing. Hopefully, this means that some lucky podcaster or media group makes $$$ off of a deal with Apple.

javagram• 7 years ago

Next up, exclusive websites that only work in safari?

Podcasts should just be an RSS feed that anyone can consume, but I think exclusivity will be important going forward, along with locking people into apps so they can be tracked and monetized.

black6• 7 years ago

Podcasts should just be an RSS feed that anyone can consume

Just the way the Podfather, Adam Curry, intended.

sudosushi• 7 years ago

He continues to podcast that way, in the morning. I wouldn't call a pay-to-play audio file, a podcast. A value for value donation structure seems the only way to sustain podcasts.

sjwright3• 7 years ago

Or TV shows that only work in Netflix?

zaksoup2• 7 years ago

I feel like there is near universal agreement that service-exclusive content fragmentation is terrible for consumers regardless of media format.

kalleboo• 7 years ago

Next up, exclusive websites that only work in safari?

No, that's Chrome's wheelhouse

barbecue_sauce• 7 years ago

Is this where Spotify is heading as well with its acquisition of Gimlet?

nameismypw2• 7 years ago

Yes, and Anchor. Podcasts are on the way out, just like the open Web. It's unfortunate that we refuse to learn from history.

buildzr• 7 years ago

Is there any reason we can't just rip podcasts from these, post them in RSS feeds and have the non-owned apps list them for free - thus making them far superior by giving them access to all content?

icebraining3• 7 years ago

It's unfortunate that we refuse to learn from history.

Who does? It's not like most of us have any say in the matter.

samschooler• 7 years ago

I would love if they at least just made it a premium RSS feed

MBCook5• 7 years ago

Probably. And I won’t listen to any Gimlet shows that require me to use the Spotify app.

I’m fine with subscription podcasts, I pay for a few. But if I can’t use my podcast app it’s not happening.

arusahni• 7 years ago

How do you feel about timed exclusives? I gave up on Crimetown when the second season was seemingly a Spotify exclusive. But, then, a year later, they started releasing the episodes on the RSS feed.

Given how many "must-listen" podcasts I've been recommended, I can definitely stand waiting out these exclusives... until a cultural-moment series (a la Serial) comes along and necessitates real-time consumption.

youeseh• 7 years ago

Why do companies that build platforms and marketplaces keep doing this? Are they really so uncreative that they just can't help but compete with the vendors?

JustSomeNobody• 7 years ago

2019 - The year that podcasting started going downhill because of the greed machine.

Got no problem with people making money off podcasts, but once everything starts getting consolidated, crap just goes south.

b_tterc_p• 7 years ago

I don’t know why apple assumes they will be good at making creative content. Podcasts, TV, video games...

They might be. No reason to lean either way. But it’s expensive. It feels contrary to the desires of people who invested in apple, the hardware, software, and platform provider...

jayflux• 7 years ago

Apple won’t be making the content, my guess is they’ll pull a Spotify and buy the productions companies who make the content. Things will continue the way they are now, except they’re exclusive to Apple.

gen34• 7 years ago

Personally, I think this is good. It allows more people to make a living off of podcasting, and will hopefully keep Spotify from taking over the market.

At minimum it helps the medium gain a wider adoption.

freedomben5• 7 years ago

I promise I'm not trying to troll-bait you into saying something that will get you downvoted into oblivion. I'm really curious (please people don't downvote the response, assuming one comes).

Why do you say:

and will hopefully keep Spotify from taking over the market.

Why would that be such a bad thing in your opinion?

Spotify seems like a clear underdog with a ton more vulnerability here. If anything I worry about the giants (like Apple) continuing to approach monopoly/gatekeeper status and closing those of us non-Apple users off from more and more.

Somewhat off topic but I literally can't even text some of my friends anymore because I'm a "green bubble" or something like that, and it drives them nuts. I hate the emerging world of have and have-nots that are not for technical reasons at all.

icebraining3• 7 years ago

I read it as meaning gen3 doesn't want any monopolists, rather than wanting Apple to take over instead of Spotify.

gen34• 7 years ago

I'm happy to explain! From my point of view I see this as an injection of cash into the podcasting market. Personally, I don't see podcasts as being super mainstream (not on the same level as books / music / youtube). I think funding would allow more content to be produced, and hopefully allow for more people to enjoy podcasting. This would grow the market as a whole.

Spotify has most of the music streaming market (more then double Apple Music's share). I do agree that exclusives are bad, but my assumption is that Apple will make an android podcasts app if they do start charging / require service exclusivity (Like they did with apple music).

As for the iMessage issue... I don't really have a good solution for that. I know lots of people use Discord / Signal / GroupMe / Wire for group chats, since its more platform agnostic.

ihuman5• 7 years ago

Does the new podcast mac app allow you to see the RSS feed like iTunes? If so, I wonder if you could extract the exclusive podcasts' feed URL and use it in 3rd party apps.

freedomben5• 7 years ago

I can't answer your question, but as someone who uses ruby scripts to do custom filtering on podcast feeds, I can say that iTunes is one of the biggest PITAs to work with. Constantly evolving to further obscure the inner workings. Apple isn't the only one, but they are definitely the 10,000 lb gorilla.

ihuman5• 7 years ago

I was more referring to the feature where if you already subscribe to a feed, you can get the URL from either the right-click menu or menu bar menu. Although I remember there being a way to get the RSS feed from the Apple Podcast webpage for the podcast; is this what you are talking about?

bdibs• 7 years ago

If they’re exclusive to Apple, there isn’t much of a reason to have a RSS feed.

ihuman5• 7 years ago

If they stick with RSS, they won't have to write/test a new feed format and parser. RSS (and the podcast extensions to it) are pretty battle-tested at this point.

genmon• 7 years ago

Given the relatively low cost (I imagine), Apple could instead fund regular podcasts, but buy out their entire ad/placement inventory, and continue to make the podcasts available to everyone.

Given Beats 1 as "platform exclusive radio" hasn't made much of a splash (is it still going?), maybe audio content is better thought about as extending awareness as opposed increasing stickiness.

jakebasile2• 7 years ago

I really wish they'd compete by just making the Podcasts app not a pile of shit.

It routinely doesn't sync where I am between devices and never works correctly on my HomePod. Adding old episodes on one device won't add it anywhere else. The Apple TV version simply doesn't have the ability to add episodes to your library. The less said about iTunes' podcast functionality the better.

I know they're porting the iOS Podcasts app to Mac for the next version so there's some hope.. maybe.

MBCook5• 7 years ago

Those problems STILL exist? That’s what drove me to Overcast many years ago.

jakebasile2• 7 years ago

I should probably just use Overcast, too. It's insane to me how awful the Podcasts app is.

peaktechisnow• 7 years ago

Spotify started this war, but Apple will finish it.

doh2• 7 years ago

That's so unnecessary.

If Apple wants to fend off rivals, then just stop treating podcasts as second class citizens and built tools for creators, including detailed analytics. I'm not talking about the type of analytics that Google would built (one that reports that you were sitting on john while listening to this part), but one with anonymized usage data that helps creators producing new content and generate revenue through subscription and advertisement.

spankalee• 7 years ago

What part of Google analytics do you think are different from what you described?

doh2• 7 years ago

I meant that Google would try to extract any and every information from a user, while Apple can easily just provide the most important information.

Admittedly, I was trying to be a bit funny. Didn't work out obviously.

bredren• 7 years ago

I used their podcast connect service recently and it is so basic and bad.

I agree if they cared about podcasts they should start with enabling all podcasts. Walling off accessibility podcast audio streams is dumb precedent for such an influential player to fuel.

sunshinelackof• 7 years ago

I'm not sure of the potential for growth on either end that podcasts have. Certainly they remain popular with more educated consumers, but I wonder if it's a case of being unable to see outside of your bubble. On the other end, podcasts have always been super cheap to make. That isn't going to change. Most people have historically just made them for fun or out of passion.

There's probably little hope in growing a platform of highly produced podcasts that supports a bunch of creators, regardless of who does it. I think think these efforts will crash and burn. But this isn't a problem for the people who've been recording on a Zoom and paying $5/month to host their libraries for the last 10 years.

ortusdux• 7 years ago

Que google releasing their verison: audio adwords for podcasts with optional subscriptions to remove the ads.

lxe• 7 years ago

I don't like where media streaming is headed. This is what everyone is doing:

1. Create a distribution platform. Users pay $14 a month to stream all content. Everyone is happy.

2. Once successful, start creating exclusive content.

3. Content creators on your platform start their own platforms and take content off of yours.

4. Now users are paying $14 for 6 different distribution/content platforms. Might as well just call them "channels". This is no better than cable.

eljimmy• 7 years ago

I would not be surprised if step 5. is a platform that is essentially an aggregation of different platforms which pays out royalties/fees to each of the individual services and thus completes the digital recreation of cable TV.

vl• 7 years ago

To the large extent this is how Amazon Video (or Hulu) works - you can subscribe not only to Prime Video, but also to HBO, Starz, CBS, etc. Which have subscription services of their own.

bilbo0s• 7 years ago

Switch 2 and 3 and you can see what the issue is.

Content creators can easily create distribution platforms of their own. So if you're Disney? Well, why deal with Netflix?

Netflix et al are then in a bind, in that they eventually have less and less content, so they start making content.

It's kind of a vicious circle.

Wowfunhappy2• 7 years ago

But also, now a lot more art exists in the world that would otherwise have never have been created!

Sure it's annoying to view, but it's out there! (Note, it's annoying, not necessarily expensive! You can subscribe to a different service each month.)

Reedx• 7 years ago

Still a lot better than cable since you can watch what you want in real time and no commercials.

Also you really don't need to subscribe to all of them. Who needs that much content? I can't even keep up with my Netflix or YouTube queue, let alone the others. I have Amazon Prime, but never use it. HBO for a couple shows, but could subscribe only during their seasons.

beisner• 7 years ago

When cable was first introduced there were no commercials...

truebosko• 7 years ago

All signs point to us being back to what we had when cable was prominent. Different lipstick on the same pig.

gnopgnip• 7 years ago

Without exclusive content what bargaining power does the platform have?

ohnope• 7 years ago

5. Users eventually figure out they are paying way too much for random platforms they watch once or twice a month with the exception of a yearly season binge for that 1 show they continue to subscribe for.

6. Users begin to drop from platforms.

7. Platforms realize the masses are fatigued from dealing with 5-10 different apps, multiple monthly payments, queues, sifting through tons of mediocre exclusive content, etc. They decide to create a God Platform that manages multiple "channels" through a single subscription.

8. Users love it, flocking to the new God Platform.

9. ?

Spivak• 7 years ago

9. Members of the God Platform realize that each entity being logically separate and needing to be independently profitable hurts the entire platform so they move to a combined subscription model where user revenue is shared depending on the size and popularity of the content provider.

10. The new model ensures that content producers compete at the contract negotiation level and don't manifest in user-visible price differences so the price of content gradually shifts away from the cost of production and up to customers' willingness to pay since all content producers are singular in the intent to maximize total user revenue.

11. Access to this God Platform is pretty much ubiquitous and ISPs try to differentiate themselves by bundling discounted subscriptions as part of their internet package. People love it and gradually move over.

12. Once every ISP offers the service the discount evaporates as it's no longer a differentiating feature.

13. ?

gringoDan• 7 years ago

It's interesting to see this evolution of media over time.

It used to be that it didn't matter who you were - the distribution channel was all that mattered. For example, MTV could make you famous in an instant, but the second the channel let you go and replaced you with the next flavor of the week, you were out of luck.

More recently, we've moved to a model where the platform and medium are less important than the personality. Think Joe Rogan, who pushes his podcast out to every channel possible. Or Barstool Sports, which has various content in the form of podcasts, blogs, YouTube videos, etc.

These power law podcasters (Joe Rogan, Tim Ferriss, etc.) can make more money on their own than through exclusivity with a distribution network. But they are few and far between, and require an entire support system to handle ads, cross-posting content, business admin, etc.

So it seems that the majority of full-time podcasters and content creators, after attracting an audience, will move back towards a walled garden of content.

If you're a creator making a living off of your work, would you rather spend 75% of your time on business admin and cobble together your income through ad and merch sales? Or sign with Apple or Spotify, collect a salary, and spend 100% of your time creating art?

We haven't come full-circle, though. While these creators are locked into the platform, people are coming to the platform for the creators themselves. The creators have far more power than they used to. But the consumer has to pay for a "cable package" of podcast apps and video streaming apps.

Corollary: Lots of people no longer root for teams, but for their favorite athletes. I see a ton of this especially in the NBA, where people are LeBron fans first and just root for whatever team he's currently playing for.

holy_city• 7 years ago

I kind of disagree with your take here. This is just the segmentation of the market into aggregators and channels, just like what happened with cable and like is happening with OTT services today. Netflix/Hulu are good examples of aggregators condensing into channels.

The one thing I think that makes this different is that podcasts are stupid cheap to produce and distribute. You could put together a podcast network in a weekend. Getting sponsors is probably harder than getting listeners.

I honestly don't see the value-add of Apple throwing their weight into this market, unless they're planning on monopolizing audio content distribution on iPhones, or paying a lot more than the podcast's sponsor spots are worth. I'd be wary of being tied to a single platform for distribution, because that's played hell with creators on YouTube.

cm2187• 7 years ago

Audio is so trivially pirated (and in fact was pretty much the first resource to be pirated in the 90s) that I don't know how many seconds they really expect this content to remain exclusive. All they will achieve is to limit the audience of these podcasts, but if users are keen to listen to them...

bmurphy1976• 7 years ago

Here comes the overcommoditized corporate schlock. I hope it doesn't take the air out of the room for the independents. The best thing about podcasting is it's not completely overrun with corporate censors. That's going to be a change for the worse I suspect. We'll get a couple game of thrones caliber podcasts, but in return most are going to be housewives of whatever quality.

filmgirlcw5• 7 years ago

I don’t mind if Apple does this. I don’t even mind if Apple uses this as an opportunity to promote/feature its podcasts more prominently in Apple Podcasts. But I’m very fearful that Apple will make its podcasts only available in Apple Podcasts and won’t adhere to the RSS spec and will only be available in its apps and on its platform.

chipotle_coyote3• 7 years ago

I'd kind of like them to make their podcasts totally open (i.e., like every other non-exclusive podcast), with a proviso that their original podcasts cannot be made available through any app that shares exclusive for-pay content. That is, you can listen to an Apple Original Podcast(tm) on not only Apple Podcasts, but Overcast, Castro, Pocketcasts, etc., but not through Spotify or Luminary.

And, yes, I recognize that'd be kind of a jerk move, but I'm okay with being a jerk in this context.

filmgirlcw5• 7 years ago

That’s interesting. If there was a way to block Luminary — I’d be in favor of that.

Spotify has its own repository that is separate from Apple Podcasts — you have to manually submit to them and they don’t just ingest Apple’s directory (as others do), but I wouldn’t be opposed to not submitting an Apple podcast to Spotify.

That said, I’m not in favor of doing anything to the RSS feed that makes it nonstandard. So if Luminary can add/play files from an RSS feed (not talking about how they import stuff into their own directory) or Spotify had that feature, I’d be opposed to breaking the feed, if that makes sense.

KaoruAoiShiho• 7 years ago

Do you guys think the world would be a better place if platform owners are not allowed to use their control over the platform to gain an advantage in adjacent industries? If this level of vertical integration is deemed monopolistic and illegal? Yes Netflix would have to divest its content business and Disney would have to divest its streaming business, Sony and MS would have to sell their game studios and end their third party exclusives. This way platforms can compete on their own merits as platforms only and content compete as content only. The consumer would win by choosing the best platform and the best content without being forced to bundle bad platform and good content or vice versa.

The situation ATM seems awful.

rwz• 7 years ago

Curious what kind of content will be in there.

I can't personally imagine Joe Rogan or Sam Harris kind of conversations under the Apple umbrella, since no matter the topic, there's always going to be someone offended and it's now a question of who's gonna spin the "Apple is sponsoring nazis" kind of narrative first.

charlesju• 7 years ago

Does anyone else think the Podcast app is unusable? This is what I'd do if I were Apple.

1. Fix your app for people that sub to more than 10 podcasts, I crash all the time and takes me maybe 5-10 minutes to load into the app. I had to switch to Spotify because I can't use Apple's version anymore.

2. Host podcasts for premium members. Run ads for them.

3. Create an Android and Windows app. Separate Mac app. Own this space.

wenbin2• 7 years ago

I hope exclusive podcasts don't become a trend. Podcasts are very good media format for informal education / learning. Instead of spending 30 hours reading a book, you can just listen to conversion among smart people in 30 minutes in podcasts. If there are more and more exclusive & paid podcasts, it'll become harder for young people (or people from poor areas) to access to the content.

ps, I built Listen Notes ( https://www.listennotes.com/ ) to be an independent podcast directory that helps surface long tailed podcasts (public & distributed via rss). If you want to build a better podcast app, you can use Listen Notes API to jumpstart your project: https://www.listennotes.com/api/

xamuel• 7 years ago

Instead of spending 30 hours reading a book, you can just listen to conversion among smart people in 30 minutes in podcasts

I don't understand this. Why can't that 30 minute conversation be transcribed into a script which you can read in 5 minutes? Either way, you're missing practically everything in the book.

jeena2• 7 years ago

It might be possible but I rather listen relaxed to those people on my train ride than staring concentrated on my phone for 5 minutes.

PascLeRasc2• 7 years ago

Why listen to music when you can read the lyrics? The written word was created out of a need to disseminate information to the masses more efficiently than the author speaking to everyone individually, but that's now a mostly solved problem with podcast distribution. Spoken word allows for certain nuances that are hard or impossible to convey over text. Also, it's just fun to listen to a few good hosts go back and forth.

jeena2• 7 years ago

I live near Gothenburg an a couple of my friends I went to university do work for Spotify. Every couple of months we meet for afterwork. In addition to that I do have my own podcast (https://jeena.net/pods) which I only publish on my own website and added the link to my RSS feed to iTunes (and https://gpodder.net/).

Last time on afterwork they started asking me why my podcast isn't in Spotify. I hesitated at first because I knew that I'm basically would need to tell them that they're working for a company which does immoral things and that I don't want to help them to destroy the Podcast landscape.

But there was no way around it so I tried to explain it as soft as possible, but they're intelligent people and didn't have a problem in understanding what I'm trying to say even though they themselves never thought in those categories. There was a bit of awkward silence after that. But then we changed the subject.

picklesman• 7 years ago

Hopefully now Tim and Eric can secure their funding!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lInBaMusmO4

(A video of Tim prank calling Apple tech support circa 2006 trying to get Apple to fund their podcast. The faux biz speak is great)

ycombonator• 7 years ago

Apple is trying to compete on the wrong turf à la Netflix, Prime Video and Spotify. At the end of the day when the “original content” fad ends, its going hurt Apple badly.

adammenges• 7 years ago

One interesting place Apple could add value is offering (once they combine all their services into Apple+, and then maybe only for those users) let podcast creators host ad-free versions of their episodes and give a little kick back to them when an episode is downloaded.

gigatexal• 7 years ago

No Apple don’t! Just keep the iTunes aggregator of podcasts open and free. Doing so has kept podcasts vibrant and Apple the defacto curator of the canonical list of podcasts — a huge moat

clydethefrog• 7 years ago

Pesky RSS 0.92 !

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15851985

Apple Plans to Bankroll Original Podcasts to Fend Off Rivals

Related Stories