Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/19/spotify-signs-the-joe-rogan-experience-to-an-exclusive-multi-year-deal/

by mmq • 6 years ago

414 671 6 years ago

That sounds like he won't be on YouTube anymore. Shame. I don't really like using Spotify.

DevKoala• 6 years ago

I probably will never watch it now since I don’t have a Spotify subscription and don’t need one. Is Spotify free for Podcasts?

davismwfl• 6 years ago

He said in the announcement his podcast is remaining free. I don't know if you have to register with Spotify to listen, but I would think you would.

xnyan• 6 years ago

That’s the whole point, killing open podcast distribution. They want the only viable place to get podcasts to be the Spotify app which they control.

fearingreprisal2• 6 years ago

From memory, you don't need an account to use spotify. You don't even need to download an app.

skellera• 6 years ago

Spotify has an ad-supported free tier. This will be available on that, along with all their other podcasts.

mbalex99• 6 years ago

This might be Europe’s answer to YouTube.

polski-g• 6 years ago

Spotify is just as ban-happy as YouTube.

gganley2• 6 years ago

Links? Much more aware of the YouTube scene

mark_l_watson• 6 years ago

Too bad, I occasionally enjoy his show, depending on the guest.

I don’t use Spotify and I won’t bother with an account just for Joe. I hope he is getting good revenue from Spotify to make up for loss of listeners. I discovered him from Apple’s podcast app.

nikivi2• 6 years ago

Ben Thompson & James Allworth had a nice discussion recently on the podcasting space and how Spotify is posed to close over this space.

https://overcast.fm/+BihnTujyQ

Disregarding over all the negatives of centralizing podcast discovery in one place, I would love to pay one fee and get 0 ads on all the episodes. Where the money is then distributed to the podcast hosts I listen to the most (like Spotify does already with music).

It's so bizzare to me how ads are still a thing. I never ever bought anything from an ad (my mind subconsciously ignores everything I hear in an ad & often paints the product in the ad in a negative light). And I lose quite a chunk of my time speeding over (the same ads) in the episodes I listen too.

r00fus3• 6 years ago

Spotify is free with ads though. So it's more like Joe isn't running his own ad program, but instead letting Spotify run the ads, or provide premium ad-free tier.

nikivi2• 6 years ago

Sure, I'd love to have a model where if you don't pay a premium fee, you get the ads as part of the episode. However if you do pay, those ads go away.

Although it does question who would pay to put ads in the first place if you can skip them. And people that will pay to skip are ones you want to target.

I hope there is a model that can work that makes ads worse off than alternatives as they are cancer.

shrimp_emoji• 6 years ago

I just hate how Spotify is trying to bring music back into the pre-download era.

As a society, we somehow decided paying for and downloading DRM-free music is acceptable (though strangely not for movies and shows), but now you have albums becoming Spotify exclusives, and (just like with movies and shows) I can either sign up for this streaming service or hope I can download 'em through torrent or YouTube[0]. :T Ech

0: youtube-dl -i -f 140 -o '%(playlist)s/%(playlist_index)s - %(title)s.%(ext)s' https://youtu.be/hzpDOB2JYKc?list=PLXPYMcRIi2fHdvKx6Orw2ux9L...

jessaustin3• 6 years ago

Apparently as a podcast consumer you prefer the "premium" Spotify model. As Thompson and Allworth have explained numerous times, they'll never be on Spotify. Centralization is not the reason for this decision, even though it's bad for humans in general. The main reason is they want a direct relationship with their customers, which may be redundant to say because does anyone on Spotify actually have a customer other than Spotify? (OK your link to some goofy aggregator instead of the actual Exponent podcast [0] sort of undercuts this; well played.) Interestingly, Thompson has explored other funding mechanisms for his other podcasts [1]. He prefers "open and paid" to "closed and free-as-in-beer". I have "subscribed" to several podcasts that would do well to use his tech; after paying the yearly fee I was given a link to a "secret" feed that could be shared with anyone if I or the podcast app I'm using chose to do so.

In many podcast apps, you can fast-forward through advertisements. When Spotify decides they have to have advertising in addition to subscriptions in order to make investors happy, their app won't allow such fast-forwarding. In that sense Spotify's new podcast model is a bit of a scam on investors. Buying talent with invested money makes sense as long as that investment is coming in. After that stops, the underlying business won't support it, and stars like Rogan will be back on RSS.

[0] https://exponent.fm/

[1] https://stratechery.com/2020/dithering-and-the-open-web/

Marsymars2• 6 years ago

Disregarding over all the negatives of centralizing podcast discovery in one place, I would love to pay one fee and get 0 ads on all the episodes. Where the money is then distributed to the podcast hosts I listen to the most (like Spotify does already with music).

This is one aspect of ad-free monetization that I'm not really comfortable with. I value my content for reasons other than "how much of my time they take" - in fact, for a given amount of information, the podcast is more valuable the shorter it is.

I really just want a model where I pay some dollar figure in exchange for each episode or set of episodes (or album or discography for music, etc.) - high-value podcasts are free to set higher fees, and I'll pay more for them.

Basically I want podcasts on Bandcamp, I guess.

css4• 6 years ago

This makes me incredibly sad: not that we are losing Rogan's show, but that Adtech is finally absorbing the last type of media that was truly Free.

Exmoor• 6 years ago

I agree, the idea of my podcasts becoming infected with non-stop ads keeps me up at night. But you know what doesn't keep me up all night? My Eliza mattress. You see the folks at Eliza designed a mattress that allows you to create your own website in minutes. Eliza's network of doctors can review your mattress's website and prescribe the best medication to regrow it's natural hair. Don't forget to use the promo-code HACKER at checkout for 3.14% off and free shipping!

blueberry_47• 6 years ago

Let me finish my Best Fiends game first. It's friends without the r.

sida3• 6 years ago

Adtech would actually make it free. Arguably this is more like cable / Netflix than adtech

css4• 6 years ago

Now my podcast player and by extension adtech markets know what I listen to, when I listen to it, how long I listen, when I stop, when I fast forward/skip, etc., with no way to opt out. This is not freedom.

MikusR• 6 years ago

You have to pay for cable / Netflix. Spotify is free (with ads).

PhoenixReborn• 6 years ago

Rogan had ads on his podcast even before this partnership, and has had them for a long time now. I don't think that adtech is going away as long as there is a cost for the creator to make the content. Rogan (and other podcasters) have to pay for their studios somehow, and as long as the ads remain skippable (ex. at the beginning of the show like Joe has) I'm OK with it.

css4• 6 years ago

I don't care about ads, I care about walled gardens. Especially walled gardens that are designed to spy on you. Right now there are basically no metrics adtech companies have for how listeners behave, and this changes that.

Talanes3• 6 years ago

For shows that do fresh ad reads every episode, I don't even skip them. Just the slight difference of not being pure repetition every time makes them so much more bearable.

fearingreprisal2• 6 years ago

I'm not sure why you think Youtube is "truly free". They run an enormous amount of advertising. Rogan's show has always been ad supported. Possibly you use an ad-blocker, like I do, and don't see them.

fastball2• 6 years ago

The Joe Rogan Experience is currently available on many different platforms, not just YouTube.

This, however, is an exclusive deal with Spotify, so you will only be able to get it from Spotify going forward. Hence less free.

glenstein• 6 years ago

It's not YouTube, but podcasting over rss feeds as a means of distribution that is 'free' in the pertinent sense.

sdan• 6 years ago

Joe initially said he didn't want to go to Spotify because they don't pay creators.

I guess a few million made that thought go away.

vidar• 6 years ago

More than a few is my guess

jakarta• 6 years ago

a few million? I would guess ~$100mm

ProAm• 6 years ago

More than that, I think he brings in 30mm a year on his own, for a multiyear deal I bet its way over 200mm

tylersmith• 6 years ago

Sounds like they started paying creators.

redisman3• 6 years ago

They are paying a handful of creators who have leverage. I don't think they're making any changes to their per-play payouts.

purple_ferret• 6 years ago

He also said he's quit when he got bored with it. Hard to do when you're in a multi-year licensing deal.

pot8n• 6 years ago

Joe "Spotify doesn't make any sense" Rogan

fuzzybeard• 6 years ago

Let's not forget when Howard Stern went to satellite radio. That deal was worth $500M.

r00fus3• 6 years ago

If it's on Spotify does it still count as a "podcast"?

rtkwe4• 6 years ago

So what in the definition of a podcast precludes it being available on one platform?

r00fus3• 6 years ago

Mainly the mechanism for discovery & delivery - podcasts used to be RSS or Atom + Audio which allowed for repackaging and offline play.

With Spotify you need their specific app to listen. You have offline on premium but not on the free level.

Joe is now a feature of Spotify rather than being it's own destination.

karatestomp3• 6 years ago

RSS pointing to audio files versus a closed platform. Same way a WhatsApp message isn't an email.

dave84• 6 years ago

This reminds me of Howard Stern’s move to Sirius.

I would love if Spotify would allow podcast creators to set music breaks and play my music in between some of the more segmented podcast episodes.

icpmacdo• 6 years ago

Rogan said in his instagram post the podcast will stay free, I don’t think this will drive down listenership. With spotify hosting the content he will be able to have Jamie pull up lots more because of fair use, YouTube’s ContentId won’t pull the videos and steal the ad revenue. I think this is the biggest motivation for the move as he is often frustrated with that issues. Also continuing to put clips on YouTube will continue to grow the audience. I’d love to know how much the deal was worth, I bet somewhere around 150 million a year for 3-5 years.

Will_Do• 6 years ago

Yeah I suspect Youtube's policies is the main reason to switch rather than any limitations with the audio podcast in RSS. They always have an enormous amount of concern in trying to follow Youtube's policies and not get demonetized/strikes. Given video RSS is not popular, switching to Spotify makes a lot of sense. The RSS feed may have been collateral damage.

dleslie3• 6 years ago

Platform shifts are enough to lose significant viewership.

anjc2• 6 years ago

It work the opposite way too, wherein platforms lose users due to undesired changes. YouTube's banning/striking/demonitizatation of high profile channels, something that Joe often says he's afraid of, could be seen as an undesirable platform change.

whywhywhywhy• 6 years ago

I don’t think this will drive down listenership

I do, I think his podcast has benefited massively from being pushed out by the YT algorithm. Think a not insignificant percentage of his listeners didn't even get into it because they were looking for a podcast but because they were watching a YT video and the algorithm fed them a clip or an episode.

His format became so popular on YT that YouTubers started to replicate it.

wayneftw• 6 years ago

So I won't be able to watch the full episodes on YouTube any longer?

Where will the videos be hosted?

Answer to my own question: Spotify began testing video podcasting last year according to The Verge - https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/19/21263927/joe-rogan-spotif...

I guess now I'm wondering if all of his existing clips and episodes will disappear from YouTube? I would think not... but I don't ever recall finding any podcast on Spotify from a Google search result. Findability might take a hit.

godtoldmetodoit• 6 years ago

They must be paying him a shitload. He has spoken with multiple guests about how he loves being independent, having full control etc.

rtkwe4• 6 years ago

Or they've put a big enough sweetener in the contract that he's willing to take the risk. A per episode contract with a buyout if he gets kicked off (to cover losses while he reestablishes ad relationships when they kick him off) would be pretty sweet.

boromi• 6 years ago

Does this mean it will no longer be on Youtube? That really sucks because I like reading the comments even if they are 90% banter.

wnevets• 6 years ago

I'm hoping this peak Rogan

cableshaft• 6 years ago

If that means he's no longer going to be on YouTube, that's going to suck. That's been the only way I've been watching/listening the show for awhile now.

And it's going to be a lot more out-of-sight, out-of-mind for a lot of people if it's not up there with their normal YouTube video browsing. I'm sure they got a ton of money up front for that deal though.

biesnecker• 6 years ago

From his post about it on IG:

We will still have clips up on YouTube but full versions of the show will only be on Spotify after the end of the year.

:-(

bootlooped2• 6 years ago

Does Spotify play video though? I have seen those little looping background animations they have for some songs, but I have never seen a full blown music video or podcast video on there.

EDIT: I see a "Podcasts & Videos" category, so I guess there are.

general_orr• 6 years ago

the video will be on spotify? what does that mean?

sida3• 6 years ago

I honestly don’t care. But Spotify podcasting is so shitty compares to overcast.

The fact that music is mixed up with podcasts makes search and discovery much much worse

tobykimmel• 6 years ago

So it won’t be on YouTube anymore?

Barrin924• 6 years ago

It says he has creative freedom but would they seriously let him bring Alex Jones back on the podcast under the Spotify banner?

Personally I think that's probably a good thing because I find mainstreaming conspiracy theorists completely awful but I really don't know what it'll do to his fanbase given that they were big on this whole independence and do what you want brand that he had going on

wayoutthere2• 6 years ago

He has creative freedom until something crazy hits the media. Though given how exhausted everyone is of these battles these days, I'm not sure anything he could do would generate sufficient outrage.

hackinthebochs• 6 years ago

When widespread outrage is measured simply by twitter likes, I feel there is no end to the outrage machine. The cost of participating is zero while the dopamine hit of lending your support to some presumed moral issue non-zero. And therein lies the problem with adjudicating moral issues through social media. There is zero cost to join in the mob and so these tempests appear to be much stronger than they actually are. If there were a tangible cost to signing on to these outrage mobs, there would be much fewer of them and it would also be a more accurate metric.

dleslie3• 6 years ago

Those episodes get great views; I enjoy them because I find his gonzo-levels of speculative fringe insanity to be entertaining and humorous.

But I get it, some folks think that all dangerous things should be regulated or banned; especially speech.

vsdvvsderer2• 6 years ago

What happens if the conspiracy theorist is someone you agree with? Do we still avoid mainstreaming them?

Barrin924• 6 years ago

I wanted to avoid starting a discussion about conspiracy theories which is why I qualified it as personal, but given that you're asking, I categorically reject conspiracy theories because conspiracy logic is by definition paranoid, and I don't believe any of them.

busymom06• 6 years ago

I will get downvoted for saying this. Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others. So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify.

sida3• 6 years ago

It is weird to me that even gimlet podcasts are not exclusive to Spotify.

But JRE will become exclusive

jccalhoun2• 6 years ago

they are starting to release them early on spotify and then a few days later to rss. I think they are also doing "bonus" episodes or something. I think they are boiling the water and we are the frog

kentf• 6 years ago

100M+, Same with Bill Simmons on the Ringer. His was 86M I think, Joe's is like 100M+

tams• 6 years ago

With RSS/Atom, the history so far is that any use case of open feeds that gets popular enough is eventually consumed by platforms, with the feeds discontinued.

Same with podcasts: the current open golden age always felt like was going to be temporary and so far Spotify looks like the most likely player to eat the mainstream.

anoraca• 6 years ago

If it's not on the Apple Podcasts app I won't be listening to it any longer. Ah well, probably better to support smaller podcasters with my listening time.

watermelon0• 6 years ago

Free or not, Spotify is still not available in some countries.

I know that only a tiny minority of people is affected by this, but I still don't like that they chose geo-restricted service. :/

arkitaip• 6 years ago

People will probably mirror the podcast all over the web.

baal80spam• 6 years ago

I wonder if SPOT gaining +8.42% today has to do anything with it.

chaoticmass• 6 years ago

I am guessing Joe didn't learn anything from his recent guest Adam Curry.

Episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPKrZTUoUs

slg13• 6 years ago

I don't listen to his show, but as a general podcast fan this is sad. This isn't the first podcast to move away from having a free and open feed of the show, but it is certainly the biggest and it opens the doors for a lot more exclusivity deals in the future.

paulgb6• 6 years ago

Agreed. I don't think people appreciate how unique podcasting is as a distribution medium in that it has lasted so long as a completely open ecosystem. Nobody needs anyone's permission to write a podcasting app or launch a new podcast.

Sad to see that start to change, but I'm also kind of optimistic for one reason: there's just so damned much audio content out there that it is people's attention, not audio content, that is scarce. I don't think platforms have the upper hand in audio content the way that, say, Netflix does. I think that's why platforms like Luminary haven't really taken off.

tempestn• 6 years ago

Agreed; that's what keeps me hopeful here too. Looking at my podcast player, I don't think there's any single podcast that I would download a new app for, if they tried this. So hopefully at least for the type of podcasts I listen to, this wouldn't be a winning move.

downerending• 6 years ago

Re permission, that's not quite true. His show is on YouTube, and his shows are allowed on there only at their pleasure. Censorship there is not unheard of, and though I've watched only a couple, his shows seem like something that could set them off.

bvandewalle2• 6 years ago

It feels like this became the life-cycle of Internet.

The same thing happened with decentralized websites and blogs.then everyone got attracted by the managed platforms and now the web is more centralized than ever.

seumars2• 6 years ago

...it has lasted so long as a completely open ecosystem

It's the platforms that have contributed to the podcast boom of recent years, not the "open ecosystem". Anyone can start a website and upload recorded audio, which may be the reason nobody uses RSS seriously anymore because "curated" content is the new norm.

The JRE podcast has been around for ages, and it built up an audience on YouTube because that has has been the dominating media platform for more than a decade. Now Spotify is investing heavily in big names like Gimlet and now JRE, which will help it become the next dominating platform for this decade.

whalesalad4• 6 years ago

Why is this sad? To me it illustrates that there is a lot of value in Spotify as a delivery mechanism and that the existing channels are not working.

If anything it should inspire creative new solutions to the issue.

chipperyman5732• 6 years ago

If this were the case, wouldn't the podcasts would choose to use spotify on their own without having to be paid for it?

anoncake• 6 years ago

To the contrary. If Spotify was valuable as a delivery mechanism, it wouldn't need exclusives. People would use it voluntarily.

busymom06• 6 years ago

Currently, Spotify doesn't have video (except album cover clips which occasionally show up). I prefer JRE's video format instead of audio. Think of Elon smoking weed on video vs on audio - very different.

Seems like Spotify might be adding video later in the year but until that happens, we don't know what we will be getting.

CraftThatBlock• 6 years ago

The main problem is Spotify isn't a podcast app. I don't listen to music like I do podcast, and I don't want my queue there because music would mix in, and it can easily reset.

Also, most "real" podcast app have better playback options. I want to be able to see chapters, and skip silence, but forcing to use Spotify for an open format is bad for everyone. Podcasts are great because they are open, and give you choices in playback apps.

slg13• 6 years ago

This is sad because it is a harbinger of a future in which podcasting is like most other modern media. It is currently almost completely open. This openness flows in all directions. Anyone can start a podcast. Anyone can listen to a podcast. People can use any device or any piece of software to listen. Everything is up the the individuals involved and most of it is completely free. This is the future that people dreamed of for TV in the early days of cord cutting, but we are now in the era in which there are over a dozen legitimate TV streaming services and everyone seems to subscribe to multiple different ones. I don't want to have 8 separate podcast apps to listen to my favorite shows.

And for the record, this has nothing to do with compensation for content creators. I want everyone to get paid. I personally am probably in the top 0.1% of podcast consumers and spend roughly $50 per month directly supporting podcasts. There are numerous other revenue models for successful podcasts. Joe Rogan wasn't exactly poor before this exclusivity deal.

Ididntdothis2• 6 years ago

"To me it illustrates that there is a lot of value in Spotify as a delivery mechanism and that the existing channels are not working."

I think it illustrates that Spotify has a lot of money and needs to pay more publishers to use its platform.

Slippery_John2• 6 years ago

In addition to what's already been said, this is a loss for privacy. Spotify gathers information about you and sells it to whoever they want. An RSS feed simply does not allow anywhere near that level of privacy invasion. If a podcast app pulls that crap, I can always switch to another or make my own.

hinkley3• 6 years ago

I would have to ask more questions. Specifically about following the money.

As a contracted podcaster on a paid platform, does that mean his management and production team spend less time on trying to court advertising dollars? Does it mean fewer conflicts of interest? Does that mean less of (well I hardly ever listen to him, but for argument's sake) my information is sold?

Some of that could probably be figured out now. Some of it we will only know after Spotify has experienced financial distress a few times.

AndrewKemendo• 6 years ago

When was it free and open?

JRE stopped live streaming his shows a year or more ago and they were on YouTube which I wouldn't consider open. They would complain pretty regularly about being demonetized because they played a short clip that Joe or a guest was commenting on.

Seems like this deal gives them more ability to have fewer restrictions imo

slg13• 6 years ago

When I say free and open, I mean having something like this available. [1] Anyone can listen to this, on any device, using an software they want.

[1] http://podcasts.joerogan.net/feed

trts• 6 years ago

my heart sank when I learned Reply All was beginning to offer exclusive (or maybe just early publish) content to Spotify. It was tempered by the fact that the hosts actually addressed this and committed to not being exclusive to their platform. But when I read this news today I knew that the era of podcasts as an open publishing channel via RSS are done. In 5 more years a lot of people will probably have to measure the worth of content on one platform vs. another as they do with Hulu or Netflix today.

The silver lining would be the ability to avoid ads as a premium subscriber, and not have to pay Google for the privilege.

st1ck2• 6 years ago

I've stumbled on a bunch of good quality podcasts following freemium model, where they share a part of the content exclusively with their patrons. I'm guessing it earns them more money than ads.

anitil• 6 years ago

I'm still waiting for the sad day when Gimlet moves it's podcasts to exclusive status. I'm sure it's coming.

sirmarksalot• 6 years ago

I was thinking the exact same thing. I wonder if any of their higher-profile hosts will jump ship if that happens. I'll quit listening out of principle, but also because I feel like I have an alternative in Radiotopia. If Gimlet really were the only ones putting out high-production content, I'd be pretty despondent right now. As it stands, I'm angry, but I feel like I at least have an escape plan.

MarkMc• 6 years ago

True, but on the other hand allowing podcasters to make significantly more money will increase supply and you will have more podcasts to choose from with higher quality.

Consider what would happen to the quality of books if copyright couldn't be applied them: every book would have a 'free and open feed' on the internet, but overall I don't think readers would benefit.

mxcrossb• 6 years ago

I’m be been listening to podcasts daily since probably at least 2007. I feel the same way. I have plenty of memories of filling up my iPod shuffle with pods and taking them wherever I wanted. I’ve got nothing against Spotify in general, but I’ve quit listening to a number of podcasts that went exclusive solely out of principle.

bvandewalle2• 6 years ago

you make the right point. A lot of people see this as youtube censorship, but the podcast was also available in its purest form: through a RSS decentralized feed.

Now it moves to a walled garden with content unavailable to the outside world.

unethical_ban3• 6 years ago

Yep. This is like a website moving from HTTP to behind the AOL browser.

zethraeus3• 6 years ago

...and this is how podcasting dies.

karl11• 6 years ago

Just like how TV shows died once they became exclusive to one network or streaming service!

antidaily• 6 years ago

Perhaps a better example is Howard Stern?

zethraeus3• 6 years ago

Just like how the blog-web died with walled gardens.

TV shows were always centrally distributed.

d_theorist• 6 years ago

Or this is how the Joe Rogan show dies.

RyJones2• 6 years ago

Did radio die when Howard Stern signed with Sirius?

zethraeus3• 6 years ago

I could never set up my own radio station :).

The point of spotify moving into podcasts is to make a netflix-like channel that 1) attracts user and so 2) attracts more publishers. In turn, Spotify can do dynamically targeted and unskippable advertising which attracts more advertisers, and so more publishers.

As users and publishers leave the open, rss based, podcast world will have significant downwards pressure.

fewfewf3• 6 years ago

With thunderous applause.

jpalomaki• 6 years ago

This might be a big thing. I think audio is kind of underused medium. We have podcasts, audio books and music, but there’s much more that could be done. Like radio theater, documentaries, talk shows. Professionally produced audio content can be really enjoyable experience.

Production costs for audio stuff are less than for video. Our busy lives have limits for video consumption, but I think there’s still room for more audio content. Audio you can consume while doing something else. Combine it with taking a walk and you feel good for yourself - compare that to spending a hour on sofa with Netflix.

raverbashing• 6 years ago

Not disagreeing too much, but I really think podcasts have a limited "parallelism" to them

Sure, you can do the dishes or go for a walk and listen to podcasts.

But it's impossible to do anything mildly intellectual or that requires some attention

hinkley3• 6 years ago

I was trying to make a Hulu or Netflix simile in my head and then you brought up audio books.

I'm trying to decide if I would mind world where 'a Spotify' bought Libro, and focused on doing literary interviews and such.

peruvian2• 6 years ago

Guessing this is the beginning of the end of podcasting being an open medium backed by RSS, at least for "big" shows.

redisman3• 6 years ago

Definitely. The more passive participants in this space (mainly Apple) have extremely deep pockets to start defending the amount of content on their platform. I wouldn't be surprised if the RSS method will be niche by next year and it's all walled gardens for the top 1000 podcasts.

pc2g4d• 6 years ago

Article really goes out of its way to let you know why you're supposed to hate Joe Rogan...

I think it's probably a good move for his bank account but will piss off a lot of his fans. I casually follow him on Youtube, just watching clips mostly but occasionally full interviews. I never use Spotify for spoken word or video---and I probably won't follow him there.

NickBusey• 6 years ago

[deleted]

gganley2• 6 years ago

at every opportunity

This is some The Onion level shit

itqwertz• 6 years ago

I find it interesting that the radical left seeks to silence rather than find a competitor. Ideas are just as marketable as products.

I've listened to Joe Rogan for years and have found it educational and entertaining. It's fairly easy to listen while not agreeing to everything with his guests' viewpoints. I believe the content is high-quality, researched, and thoroughly unique. If you do not like the content, you don't need to listen to it.

When everything is "hate speech", nothing is hate speech. We often forget our own freedoms, especially the freedom of choice.

shoulderfake2• 6 years ago

I listen to his podcast all the time both audio and video versions on YT and I dont see what the big deal is, so I open spotify instead of youtube and click JRE.

vborovikov• 6 years ago

Well, spotify.com tells me this: "Spotify is currently not available in your country."

throwawaysea3• 6 years ago

Given that Spotify engages in some of the same censorship and control that other bit tech platforms like Google/YouTube/Twitter practice, I don't see why I would trust them and invest in their platform as a fan of such content. See https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/spotifys-censorship-crisi... for a past example where Spotify entered the fray of imposing their own worldviews by censoring content. Yes they ultimately backed off on that but I can't trust that they'll be the best steward for free thinking open minded content like Joe Rogan's.

EDIT: see the update at the bottom of the Tech Crunch article.

Update: In response to a question the Rogan show’s history of controversial guests and subject matter, a spokesperson for the company simply responded, “All shows on Spotify are subject to our content policies.”

Given their content policies include a vague "hate content" policy (https://artists.spotify.com/faq/music#what-content-is-prohib...), I don't see how Joe Rogan can openly discuss controversial topics like "Should transgender athletes compete in women's sports" any longer. Just one more reason to not trust Spotify or other big platform arbiters.

ChrisLTD• 6 years ago

There's plenty of content and creators exclusive to services and often stuck behind paywalls. I can't muster any outrage about one more person joining their ranks.

overkill28• 6 years ago

That's too bad, I hope at least the old episodes remain on YouTube.

Not only because it is simple and easy and free to find and listen to the episodes, but the associated visual content (clips, reactions) is good too.

Would Elon's blunt hit have been nearly as entertaining in purely audio form?

bb2018• 6 years ago

Spotify is rolling out video podcasts. Clips like that will still make their way to YouTube and other platforms (as they announced). However, you are right that making it harder to find and listen to will shrink its audience even if more economically sustainable. It reminds me a lot of Howard Stern leaving radio for satellite.

microcolonel• 6 years ago

YouTube really, really didn't deserve his patronage though. As somebody who has had a YouTube Premium membership over the years, the general disrespect YouTube has for the people who make the videos that attract people to their platform is offensive to me.

On YouTube, your live stream can be pulled mid-sentence if you say the name "Eric CIAramella", even if you're referring to one of the many people with that name other than the one they're concerned with. Then there is the 共匪 fiasco of the last few days. The history goes back and back and back, it's a history of declining principle, and a complete lack of policy consistency, where the audiences and creators are not only a mere commodity in reality (which is par for the course) but made to feel like it too.

jumpman5002• 6 years ago

Really? They might be able to legitimately compete with Youtube. I watch a lot of podcast clips on Youtube but would much rather view it ad-free on Spotify.

beaucarnes• 6 years ago

My guess is that the show will still be released on YouTube. I think this just applies to the audio feed.

nafey• 6 years ago

I think there was a further statement which mentioned only clips will be released on Youtube. The full video will be available only on Spotify.

whalesalad4• 6 years ago

The comments here are insane. Why do HN readers have this defeatest attitude about absolutely everything?

One prominent podcaster takes his show to one of the most popular music streaming services on the planet and the reaction is really "this is the end of podcasting as we know it" ???

chipperyman5732• 6 years ago

I think this is because it can't be listend to anywere but spotify. The excusivity is what I see many people are taking issue with

christophilus• 6 years ago

He's more than prominent. He's first or second in most podcast lists I see. I don't listen, but it does seem like a precedent I don't want to see.

notJim• 6 years ago

Because podcasts up till now have been one of the last remaining media types that are not owned and produced by some gigantic tech corporation, and are instead truly independent media. The fear is that podcasts will go the route of blogging, which many lament, because now we are at the whims of Twitter and medium for distribution. For at least 2-3 years, several companies have been trying to "own" the podcast medium, and it's looking more and more like Spotify may came out ahead.

ihaveajob• 6 years ago

I personally don't care for this podcast, but imagine if a popular website (say HN) were to sign a deal to be available exclusively through a walled garden (say Facebook). The open internet loses overall.

karatestomp3• 6 years ago

One prominent podcaster takes his show to one of the most popular music streaming services on the planet and the reaction is really "this is the end of podcasting as we know it" ???

It's already been trending that way, it's not like this is the first sign of it. It is an indication that the process of closing up what had been an open ecosystem, which was already underway, is about to accelerate, and yet another open protocol is about to start to wither in favor not of a better open protocol, but closed platforms full of spyware.

l1ghthouse• 6 years ago

For me it’s bye bye Joe Rogan and not hello Spotify.

different_sort• 6 years ago

big exhale Woah.

klondike_klive• 6 years ago

"you silly goose"

gherkinnn• 6 years ago

Well that's unfortunate. I just got in to watching his full interviews.

Good thing Techcrunch reminded me just how evil he is. That way I avoid downloading Spotify.

nostromo• 6 years ago

This seems like short-term thinking from Joe.

I'm sure he got paid big time. But his audience will shrink massively and he'll become a niche personality.

It'll be similar to what happened to Howard Stern when he went to satellite radio; he quickly faded into relative obscurity.

bengale2• 6 years ago

Yeah it’s pretty weird. I watch a lot of his shows in the background while working. But I won’t be downloading Spotify to follow him over there.

hnrodey• 6 years ago

he quickly faded into relative obscurity

And his bank account exploded in to outer space.

lonelappde3• 6 years ago

Why would Joe want to be a famous podscaster forever? Maybe he's heading into podcast retirement.

ryeights• 6 years ago

A looooot of people use Spotify, at least in the US.

thekyle• 6 years ago

Yeah I'm one of them. But how many people use it for Podcasts? I don't know any.

hombre_fatal• 6 years ago

He's not shrinking by moving to one of the most ubiquitous apps in the world. You're just going to see some brief internet rage before people type "rogan" into the Spotify app they already have running all day.

That is nothing like XM radio where I've never met someone who said they had it.

im_cynical• 6 years ago

I'm a casual watcher of his show (maybe 1 show every few weeks). Spotify has made no investment into their platform to support podcasts. No notification system for new episodes, no already listened to tracking, no subscriptions or an area where i can find all my podcasts.

I like the idea of having my music and podcasts all in one place which working across all my devices (Linux, iOS, Windows) and i gave up on them. Spotify may be ubiquitous but they're not engineered for podcasts.

beshrkayali• 6 years ago

This is pretty strange coming from a dude who talks about how corporatism and monopolies are bad for us regular humans in every other episode. Either he's planning something or he just sold out. Either way, podcasting will stay as long we keep it alive. Rogan wants to move to a closed ecosystem, fine, that's one less podcast for me to subscribe to!

Edit: one thing we can do as consumers is to stop paying for a company that's trying to take over an open medium.

generalpass2• 6 years ago

This is pretty strange coming from a dude who talks about how corporatism and monopolies is bad for us regular humans in every other episode. Either he's planning something or he just sold out. Either way, podcasting will stay as long we keep it alive. Rogan wants to move to a closed ecosystem, fine, that's one less podcast for me to subscribe to!

My guess is he's looking at his stand-up revenue approaching zero so needs to find something to replace it.

I've wondered what performance professionals are going to do.

hinkley3• 6 years ago

Is Joe really in charge?

The problem with collaborations is that we either treat them as a dictatorship or a democracy and neither works. At some point we give up on certain things because it's too much work versus too many other people, maybe we've vetoed too many other things and we - or others - feel less entitled to keep doing it, so we don't say anything or they try to go around us when we aren't looking.

I know some of the stuff I complain loudest about online is motivated by an argument I'm presently losing somewhere else. It's hard to look at what someone says in public and know if that's how they really feel, or them reacting to something that is off balance by leaning farther in the other direction than they would unprompted.

That said, where do most people watch the JRE? Is it Youtube? Youtube is Google, and if someone wants to argue that Spotify is the little guy compared to Google, I don't know how to talk someone out of that idea. Are we on a road to "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?" Are we already there?

lonelappde3• 6 years ago

Is Spotify a monopoly?

tpxl2• 6 years ago

Exclusive deals are monopolies by definition.

troughway• 6 years ago

Doesn't JRE have guests on there with cemented right-wing opinions, and in general controversial figures from which he gains his popularity/notoriety? Is Spotify going to allow those guests or is JRE going to have to censor?

mcintyre1994• 6 years ago

Is their player anywhere near as good as Overcast? Can you sync them on Apple Watch to listen to without the phone? I quit Spotify because you couldn’t do that with the music, so I’m guessing probably not?

flixic• 6 years ago

It’s much more primitive. No silence skipping, no voice boost, and most importantly, show notes are hidden and don’t really support HTML.

Spotify is hurting podcasting and a lot of what is good about the open ecosystem with diverse clients.

tinyhouse• 6 years ago

Never understood why his podcast such a hit. I mean, I like the guy, and he's knowledgeable about MMA. But he's not someone I care to listen to on other topics.

bengale2• 6 years ago

I find the guests pretty interesting most of the time and it tends to be laid back as he doesn’t get confrontational with people. It helps that’s he’s a funny guy and can carry a conversation with pretty much anyone.

Mikeb85• 6 years ago

Podcasts such as his aren't really about his opinion, rather the opinions of his guests and the conversation that follows. I'm not the biggest Joe Rogan fan but have enjoyed a few of his shows.

s1artibartfast2• 6 years ago

Not a big fan but an occasional listener. He covers a wide range of topics and his content is interesting if you have no prior exposure to them. I think many people find his attitude a breath of fresh air in the face of cancel culture.

caribousoup• 6 years ago

It's the unusual guests. Rogan himself is pretty dull, same repetitive talking points about uninteresting things.

The best shows are when he gets someone on and lets them talk for hours about a niche topic. He has a large back catalogue of strange guests, some are legitimately interesting. Skip any guests who are comedians or fighters.

I unsubscribed a few months back, either I outgrew the show or it has declined in quality. I just find him to be annoying most of the time now. But there are a lot of good episodes in the shows history.

jccalhoun2• 6 years ago

If this was a podcast that I listened to, I would be mad. I want podcasts to be in my podcast app. I listen to them mostly on my phone and I don't have spotify on my phone. I don't want to install and open a separate program just for one show.

It also irritates me off when I see a podcast mentioned online and they only give an itunes link. I am an android user. Yes, most of the shows are in pocketcast's directory if I search for it but only putting an itunes link makes it more work for me and less likely to bother.

saagarjha2• 6 years ago

I'm mad and I don't even really listen to Joe Rogan. Podcasts should be open: they're just RSS!

m463• 6 years ago

Well the rss does redirect through a bunch of metrics-tracking urls.

perceptronas• 6 years ago

What do you think if Spotify added "buy and download" button for specific podcast episodes?

RandyRanderson• 6 years ago

Note that the old clips WILL NOT remain on youtube at the end of the year. At least that's what he said in the Patton Oswald intro.

He's been a critic of yt's policies for a while. I hope that he comments on whether this is a purely monetary call or, in some part, due to those policies. Maybe he or Jamie-pedia read hn? :>

mythrwy15• 6 years ago

I sometimes listen to Joe Rogan using Rhythmbox audio player. Occasionally I'll check the corresponding YouTube clip to see what the guest looks like.

I've never used Spotify and see no need to sign up for anything. If I can't download/stream to open players I probably just won't listen anymore. There are plenty of other good podcasts and books and, although I enjoy Rogan, he does get a bit redundant after a bit so not that big of a loss.

busymom06• 6 years ago

I agree with JRE leaving YouTube over the censorship but I disagree with him moving exclusively to spotify for following reasons:

1. Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others. So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify.

2. Currently, Spotify doesn't have video (except album cover clips which occasionally show up). I prefer JRE's video format instead of audio. Think of Elon smoking weed on video vs on audio - very different. Seems like Spotify might be adding video later in the year but until that happens, we don't know what we will be getting.

3. "Exclusive" deals in the podcast world is bad. Podcasts were supposed to be platform independent audio files. Making things exclusive is going backwards.

4. Spotify is not available in many countries.

5. Spotify's desktop player isn't the best imo. Their web player is only for audio so far, so they need to make major changes.

jhamilton• 6 years ago

I don't see how 1 is an issue when Alex Jones et al were deliberately spreading hateful misinformation.

Aiming to CYA by booting someone off of a private platform and others following suit is not the same thing as "conspiring to censor" someone

TheAdamAndChe2• 6 years ago

Conspire - To join or act together; combine

Censor - prohibit or restrict the use of something

Yeah, they conspired to censor.

herostratus1016• 6 years ago

We only burn the bad books!

Reedx2• 6 years ago

It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time.

Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.

paulgb6• 6 years ago

Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others

Alex Jones has a right to free speech, but if he's going to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax causing grieving parents to be harassed, nobody owes it to him to give him a platform. He can pay his own hosting fees.

gkoberger• 6 years ago

The “Right to Free Speech” just means the government can’t impede. Nobody is required to give him a platform, though.

whitehouse3• 6 years ago

I'm not sure OP would disagree with you. He made a separate point:

So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify.

mythrwy15• 6 years ago

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated.

(not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

ravenstine5• 6 years ago

YouTube: You can pay your own hosting fees.

Namecheap: Your users can find you at your IP address.

AWS: You can run your own server hardware.

Intel: You can build your own CPU.

Electric Co.: You can generate your own electricity.

VISA: You can take payments in cash.

Hospital: You can use your own butterfly strips and an ibuprofen.

lonelappde3• 6 years ago

Spotify gave Joe money for services.

slg13• 6 years ago

Regarding point 1, the article has been updated to reflect that Spotify is holding Rogan to their content policy. This content policy prohibits "Hate Content" [1]. By any mainstream definition that would include Alex Jones and potentially other guests. Some people would even say that applies to Rogan himself for his comments about transgender people. Unless Rogan makes changes to his show or his booking, it is only a matter of time until this becomes a big issue for him and Spotify.

[1] https://artists.spotify.com/faq/music#what-content-is-prohib...

roenxi2• 6 years ago

By any mainstream definition...

Rogan has millions of downloads month and had at least one presidential candidate appear for an interview. Joe is one of the people who sets the mainstream definition.

jessaustin3• 6 years ago

Most people agree with Rogan that transgender women who have only recently started on female hormones should not hide that status from biologically female opponents in mixed martial arts. It isn't feminist for women's bodies to be brutalized by men's bodies.

shoulderfake2• 6 years ago

I listen to Rogans podcast all the time , when has he ever made hate comments about transgender people ???? No way I'd have missed him saying something hateful about anyone period, let alone transgenders

CyberDildonics3• 6 years ago

No reasonable person would accuse Joe Rogan of "Hate Content". He disagreed with an actual instance of a recently transitioned transgender woman fighting women in MMA. This is the definition of pragmatic. That person can fight men or not fight. This is not discrimination, it is protecting fighters as much as possible in a brutal and extreme sport.

roenxi2• 6 years ago

He can't actually be leaving over censorship because if he was there is no way phrases like "exclusive multi-year" would be thrown around. Once burned twice shy.

There might have been some tea-leaf reading involved that YouTube isn't a supportive platform these days but this move is probably linked to obscene amounts of money changing hands.

pharke4• 6 years ago

You have to keep in mind that Joe is a comedian first and foremost. Comedians have had the rug pulled out from under them with COVID-19. He's doing what's right for his family at the moment. I fully expect this to come up in one of his next episodes and since he's up front about this stuff it'll probably be summed up as "Sorry you fucks, a man's gotta eat!"

dqpb• 6 years ago

He’s almost certainly moving to Spotify because they’re paying him to move.

jamespullar• 6 years ago

Spotify actually has supported video for a while (https://support.spotify.com/us/using_spotify/features/videos...). However, the feature itself is horribly hidden. I have in the past accidentally come across music videos, but right now can't intentionally find any video content to cite as an example.

Edit: Another article discussing Spotify testing video content https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249389/spotify-video-pod...

chundicus• 6 years ago

I don't agree entirely with all these, but I think 3 is the most compelling. It was kind of magical to younger me discovering the interoperability of podcasts and the freedom that granted listeners (and creators too). I've been a big fan of Spotify, but I don't like this recent push to fracture the podcast market with exclusive deals.

That being said it does allow some podcasts to exist that might not otherwise. The only examples I can think of is The Besties.

swinglock• 6 years ago

I remember podcasts. Exclusively streamed audio isn't a podcast.

tinodotim• 6 years ago

Seems like Spotify might be adding video later in the year but until that happens, we don't know what we will be getting.

He stays on YT 'til January 2021. Then Spotify is supposed to have full or more like better (because they already have) video support ready.

tree3• 6 years ago

Spotify actually has video already, which they used for music videos. Although it seems like they removed it fairly recently.

voz_2• 6 years ago

Banning Alex Jones is a good thing.

rs23296008n12• 6 years ago

I'm no longer convinced of that. He should be kept in the light where we can see him and respond.

Kept in the outer fringe he will operate in a bubble and the others who are attracted to him will also exist in that bubble. This also means no opposing views to pop that bubble. I actually think this is worse for society overall.

The more light shining on him to keep him honest the better.

GoofballJones2• 6 years ago

Alex Jones being kicked off those services isn't the same thing. He was spreading major misinformation and targeted harassment at innocent people that were involved in a tragedy. He wasn't "conspired" against. They just told him to go host his hate somewhere else.

And stop with these "censorship" BS. Alex Jones has every right to start his own network if he wants and put anything on it. There's nothing stopping him from doing it. But there is also zero reason why another private company has to be forced to carry something they don't want to. Free speech doesn't mean everyone is forced to listen to that speech. Why not say that CBS/NBC/ABC/PBS are also "conspiring" against him too because they don't carry his show? OMG, Nickelodeon doesn't carry Alex Jones! They're censoring him!

Come on.

fewfewf3• 6 years ago

You're really going to delegate censorship decisions to big tech? What's classes as "misinformation" should be our choice as consumers, not theirs.

Example: David Icke may be a conspiracy theorist, but banning him is one step closer from Alex Jones towards a censorship nightmare.

The slippery slope is 10ft behind and we're cruising down at 100 mph.

alvah• 6 years ago

"Alex Jones has every right to start his own network if he wants"

Ah, the tired old "start your own Google / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube" trope. That can't be too hard /sarc

Why is delegating (effective) censorship to Big Tech suddenly a good idea?

AQuantized• 6 years ago

If it could be guaranteed to be limited to the Alex Joneses of the world, I would wholly agree with this.

However, now that a strong majority of the influential communication that takes place in society is divided across perhaps 5 tech platforms, with 1 tech company controlling the ability to search for other platforms, it's hard to say getting booted off all platforms isn't functionally restricting freedom of speech.

At what point do we concede that allowing a small set of 'private companies' carte blanche over public discourse is a restriction of public freedom?

chroma9• 6 years ago

You are conflating two forms of free speech: The right to freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution and the norm of free speech that we all tend to grant each other. Of course YouTube is a private company and can ban and delete whatever they want. But they are breaking a norm and the consequences of that may be worse than the consequences of letting us watch videos of crazy people.

I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it: The original formulations of freedom of speech weren't about protecting the rights of the speaker or writer. They were about protecting the rights of those who wanted to listen or read. Every time you ban a document or silence a speaker, you are also preventing people from reading what they want to read or hearing what they want to hear. That harm is far greater than whatever happens to the author.

Again, YouTube is a private company and they can do whatever they want when it comes to curating the information they store. I would be against any law that compelled them to host information that they didn't want to host. But in the long run, I think their current policy is extremely counterproductive. Imagine if YouTube existed 30 years ago. Would they have banned atheist views? Would they have banned videos critical of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal? What about videos endorsing transgender ideas? Many views that were considered crazy at that time are now acceptable today. Suppressing heterodox views means that fewer are exposed to them and moral progress is impeded. Yes, most fringe ideas are bullshit, but every once in a while we stumble onto a diamond: Slavery is wrong. Men and women should have the same rights. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Etc. These were all extremely controversial ideas when they first came into the public sphere. Earlier versions of our society suppressed them as dangerous misinformation.

So far, we haven't figured out a way to separate good ideas from bad ones besides exposing people to them and seeing which memes reproduce in the population. In other words: If you ban people like Alex Jones, you also ban people who are activists for causes that society will adopt in the future. And we all end up worse off.

There are certainly views that we hold today that future generations will condemn us for. Better that we discover them sooner rather than later.

IG_Semmelweiss• 6 years ago

Ok. But you cant have it both ways.

If this is the official position of google et al, that they should be free to boot people pf their platform. Fine. They are no longer pipes. They are editors for content.

As such. The agnostic pipes defense is no longer valid.

I would like to put my army of lawyers on attack mode to sue the sh*t out of them for copyright infringement, for trafficking stolen property, facilitating crimes etc.

You serve your dish and bow you must eat it.

fetbaffe• 6 years ago

Shouldn’t government accounts be banned too then? Every government has spread major misinformation & harassed innocent people.

How about CNN? They do it too.

ALittleLight3• 6 years ago

Alex Jones was banned from YouTube, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Spotify pretty much simultaneously and after years of successful use of each service. You can argue that the conspiracy to remove him from those platforms was a good thing, but I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that each of the platforms coincidentally decided to boot him at the same time. They clearly coordinated to ban him, they didn't coordinate in public, so I think it makes it quite clear he was actually conspired against.

It also strikes me as a bit disingenuous to suggest that because he can just go create his own Twitter or his own YouTube and host things there he wasn't censored. He technically could, but that doesn't change the impact of banning him from the major services. It seems as perfectly clear that they are censoring him as it is that the big tech companies conspired to do so. Again, you may argue that it is right to censor Jones - he is either a liar or crazy, but it makes no sense to argue that he wasn't censored.

I think in isolation, it would be better if Jones didn't share his opinions. But if I had to pick between realities, and in one Jones was free to spread his conspiracy theories, and in the other big companies get to decide what we can and cannot say online? Well, it's a pretty obvious choice for me.

bitwize2• 6 years ago

And when upstream service providers cut him off, he can start his own one of those.

When payment processors close all his accounts, he can start one of those.

Remember, kids, censorship refers to the government and only the government. Stray far enough onto the wrong side of history, and society may voluntarily decide you're an asshole and show you the door. And that'll be on you.

stef25• 6 years ago

These platforms policing content surely was the beginning of the end, they're getting dragged in to every he-said-she-said fight you can think of and it puts them right smack in the middle of the great culture wars that are now raging online.

They should have just drawn the line at legality & calls to violence and everything else well ... deal with it. "We're a platform, not a publisher".

Naval Ravikant basically said this, on JRE.

gerland5• 6 years ago

Free speech doesn't mean everyone is forced to listen to that speech.

You are completely right. Free speech does not mean that anyone will force you to listen to Alex Jones or any other nutjob. It means that AJ will have the right to speak and you can ignore him.

From the top of my head, let me just list a few of the poeople that were considered crazy and could not initialy find a platform to express their ideas:

Clair Patterson E. Cuyler Hammond Albert Einstein Marie Curie Sklodowska Nikola Tesla

You get my point?

cm2187• 6 years ago

So McCarthyism was ok then, where you couldn’t find any job in Hollywood if you had leftist views? Private companies free to enforce the ideology they want.

unishark3• 6 years ago

And stop with these "censorship" BS.

It is clearly censorship. The fact is simply that censorship is perfectly legal for private companies to engage in. Though when a private company starts to become a monopoly people often start trying to regulate it like a public utility.

A separate argument is whether customers and partners want to support a private company which engages in behavior they dislike such as censorship. Rogan also has every right to take his business elsewhere for such reasons, if that is actually what happened.

codeddesign• 6 years ago

1. Be realistic. He wasn’t on Nickelodeon with a very large following. Google and YouTube have a heavy bias, that isn’t new news.

2. If your ISP starting preventing you from viewing HN, would that be censorship or their own right? Since you have your own right to start your own ISP.

3. If I own a cake business, is it perfectly acceptable to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple? (We all know how that turned out)

JSavageOne3• 6 years ago

Youtube is a platform, Nickelodeon is a television channel. What a nonsensical comparison.

dzhiurgis• 6 years ago

Their web player doesn't even work with desktop Safari...

gsich3• 6 years ago

Use another browser. Probably Apple saying "we don't support "obscure" file formats".

armandhammer• 6 years ago

Yes it does, I'm using it right now. Safari 13.1; macOS 10.15.4; 2014 MBP. Nothing special here, it just works (though I normally use Brave).

bassman9000• 6 years ago

Around 0:22

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2020-05-19/the-joe-rogan-experi...

Includes video.

emilsedgh• 6 years ago

JRE leaving YouTube over the censorship

Meh. Youtube is an open platform. You can upload anything to it and there's almost no oversight except for a few sensitive situations, which I'm pretty much sure Google doesn't want to be involved with to begin with, but they have to. That's the price of them staying open for anyone to upload anything.

But Spotify is a closed and controlled environment. Not anyone can upload anything they want to it...

So in protest against Youtube's censorship he moved to a closed ecosystem where most of the world cannot publish to anyways.

That's either a faulty decision making, or trying to get some PR and making it look like a moral stand not just a better deal.

stOneskull5• 6 years ago

it wouldn't be "the exact same show" if there wasn't video. there's no way it'd be audio only.

propogandist• 6 years ago

keep in mind that spotify mines an incredible amount of data. This is what someone got when they did a GDPR request few years ago, and companies have only gotten more aggressive in the amount of data they're capturing https://twitter.com/steipete/status/1025024813889478656

carapace3• 6 years ago

Ah, shit. That's creepy as hell.

reedwolf• 6 years ago

If you can't trust Swedes with your data, who can you trust?

gsich3• 6 years ago

A podcast is only a podcast if it has RSS.

99_00• 6 years ago

He is going to Spotify for $100 million.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca...

ilaksh• 6 years ago

It's probably well over $100 million dollars. I would love to see you stand on those principles of yours and turn down $100 million dollars.

rorykoehler3• 6 years ago

It’s $100m on the dot. JR is already a multi-millionaire. Surely there is a point where money buys you the ability to live by your principles otherwise what’s the point in having principles at all?

camillomiller• 6 years ago

From what you say it’s as if Joe Rogan is a solipsistic prick with a disproportionate ego who runs a much overrated show and who cares mostly about getting richer and richer...

virvar3• 6 years ago

I always found America’s grips on these things a tad weird. In my country you’re accountable to print the truth, and if you don’t, it comes with fines or even prison time. Because lying to the public is dangerous.

That hasn’t stopped opinion pieces, but it has stopped media outlets from printing things like “the earth is flat” or “drinking bleach cures covid”. Unfortunately this is yet to apply to social media stars, but when they have audiences larger than news papers I think they should frankly be under the same laws.

Yet in America you seem to put that sort of thing in the same box as Chinese censorship. Which is really just so strange to me. Do you really think you can have a functioning democracy when people live in completely different bubbles of subjective truth?

aaron695• 6 years ago

So you ban churchs?

Killed maybe billions over the past 100,000 years.

They also provide comfort and help to billions through their lies. Hard to ever know what their total effect has been. But still lies.

Or is your religion ok and 'normal', but thinking the world is flat not?

MadSudaca• 6 years ago

What if your country's government becomes corrupt and starts using its power to enforce "truth" against its citizen's own interests?

vokep• 6 years ago

you’re accountable to print the truth

Whatever portion of government handles that in your country, is quite literally analogous to the "Ministry of Truth" in 1984.

Do you really think you can have a functioning democracy when people live in completely different bubbles of subjective truth?

Nobody knows, its always been an experiment. The experiment is done with the basis that other ways of going about it (some system of enforcing a consistent "truth" among all citizens) would be totalitarian and tend towards tyranny every single time.

sokoloff• 6 years ago

You list 5 reasons to not choose Spotify. Joe has over 100 million reasons to choose Spotify as his platform. I say "good for him".

danielscrubs• 6 years ago

5. In regards to number five, at the time Spotify came out I was still using Winamp. The just completely insane thing to me was that I could from a cold start, start the app and listen to a new song in Spotify in noticeably less time than in Winamp where the songs where on my PC!

To this day it still perplexes me. Nowadays I think(?) they have switched to a more web-centric GUI-framework and a Server-model, but at that time, Jesus Christ was it impressive on my crappy computer. It was a beast.

PS. for a nostalgic trip, anyone remember Foobar?

JSavageOne3• 6 years ago

Great summary of the issues. I'll add that a nice part about having JRE on Youtube is having a comments section. Spotify does not have any kind of comments section.

#4 is a pretty big deal to me as I'm in Korea and Spotify is not supported here. I don't use Spotify mainly for that reason. I know I could use a VPN, but that's too much hassle only to listen to JRE (also I'm not aware of any quality free VPNs, and don't care enough to pay for a subscription).

thisisbrians• 6 years ago

Really, a typo in the very first sentence?

Over the past couple of years, Spotify has demonstrating a long-term commitment to the podcasting format . . .

I feel like editorial quality has really gone to shit lately, especially at less mainstream outlets like TechCrunch (where I seem to spot at least one mistake in every article I read without trying). I wish I could say it didn't matter, but sloppy writing undermines your credibility, especially with so many voices competing for attention nowadays. Your [sic] doing it wrong.

busymom06• 6 years ago

I agree with JRE leaving YouTube over the censorship but I disagree with him moving exclusively to spotify for following reasons:

3. "Exclusive" deals in the podcast world is bad. Podcasts were supposed to be platform independent audio files. Making things exclusive is going backwards.

4. Spotify is not available in many countries.

5. Spotify's desktop player isn't the best imo. Their web player is only for audio so far, so they need to make major changes.

tantalor• 6 years ago

This explanation does not really make sense:

Bringing the JRE to Spotify will mean that the platform’s more than 286 million active users will have access to one of culture’s leading voices.

Spotify has podcasts, JRE is a podcast, so I assume those users already have access to JRE before this deal.

By partnering with Spotify, Rogan and his team will enjoy the support of the world’s leading audio platform.

Vague. What can JRE do now they couldn't do before?

moz14015• 6 years ago

Make a lot more money.

rs23296008n12• 6 years ago

Not having to deal with youtube's nonsense is likely a strong reason. If I was Rogan that reason alone would cause me to regularly evaluate alternatives. Multiple episodes have Rogan himself hitting a Youtube restriction and him verbally expressing frustration.

This is something a lot of content creators on youtube are experiencing.

boolcow• 6 years ago

Joe Rogan is surprisingly greedy. The man has been rich for decades, doesn't need money at all, and yet he's been selling crappy snakeoil products for years, and now he's selling out wholesale. He's taking a boatload of money to kill his show. Maybe he's just tired and this seems like a smart way to end it...

Sadly he just doesn't seem to be up to the challenge of seizing his role in history anyway. He could be someone that bridges the left/right political divide. He's the closest we have right now, but just not up to it.

There is a deep desire in the US for someone almost like Joe Rogan. Just like there is a deep desire for someone almost like Bernie Sanders. Or even someone almost like Donald Trump.

I consider these people the first wave of Great Internet Personalities. And just like the first pancake, they're not quite right.

We're living in a Bizzaro World for now. I'm eagerly looking forward to the second wave of Great Internet Personalities.

anjc2• 6 years ago

It doesn't take much listening to JRE or similar shows to realise that they're in constant fear of strikes and demonetization, even when talking about mundane topics. Joe's no Alex Jones or David Icke, and he's still afraid of getting more strikes on the channel. If this move means he can talk comfortably then good for him. It's not as if listeners lose any rights in the process.

Would this mean he could play artist's music that Spotify are allowed to stream? Or would other agreements be needed for this?

Ididntdothis2• 6 years ago

This quote caught my eye:

"At the time, the Human Rights Campaign said Sanders “must reconsider” the endorsement, stating that Rogan has “attacked transgender people, gay men, women, people of color and countless marginalized groups at every opportunity.”"

If they attack somebody like Rogan in this way, it's no wonder that a lot of people are getting tired of political correctness and move the other direction.

free_rms2• 6 years ago

The kicker is, they got their way, and we've got notable woke icon.. checks notes.. Joe Biden as the nominee instead.

willis9366• 6 years ago

Spoiler effect: rendered. This why it’s important to stick to your own party if you need to keep FPTP. An echo chamber is literally better than being interfered with.

Were any good points made? Did anyone learn anything? No. It was just a facade to help their own tribe.

bencollier49• 6 years ago

It was another Spotify podcast acquisition which led me to cancel them in favour of Napster earlier this year, and I couldn't be happier.

ravenstine5• 6 years ago

Half the fun of JRE is watching it! I hope this means that they will be introducing video, but I'm guessing not. If JRE disappears from video form, a part of the goodness of the universe will have died.

jankassens• 6 years ago

Spotify has been running an exclusive high-profile podcast in Germany for multiple years now. It was previously running on radio and regular podcasts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fest_%26_Flauschig )

It's surprising to me that popular, platform exclusive audio content isn't happening faster. All video platforms have it.

MisterPea• 6 years ago

Not many podcasts have the following and clout of JRE. Seems like the podcast you mentioned in Germany has it as well.

But platform exclusive content is the exact opposite of what pretty much every podcast listener wants. Someone in another comment mentioned how podcasts are the last distribution of media thats completely open and this is the first big step in the wrong direction.

type02• 6 years ago

The final blow to RSS, podcasting remained one of the last strongholds of free distribution and now even that is being locked down in corporate silos.

oldsklgdfth• 6 years ago

I listen to the podcast because of the diverse and interesting guests that are on there sometimes.

It's interesting to watch how a guy that kinda rambles with some friends mostly, created a following, turned his side hustle into an income and now he's really cashing in.

Idk to what extent he worked hard to develop this business. But I suspect it's mostly him making people feels comfortable to table about what they know. If there is someone working on this I would guess the cohost - Jamie - is doing the heavy googling.

brailsafe4• 6 years ago

So he's ending his podcast and starting a radio show. I mostly watched the clips on YouTube and while I do subscribe to Spotify, I use PocketCasts for Podcasts. Guess I'll be using YouTube less which is fine, and maybe I'll tube in for the occasional really interesting guest.

olivermarks• 6 years ago

Spotify is the Clearchannel/iHeartMedia of the 2020's. I refuse to use.

cwhiz• 6 years ago

That’s too bad. I ditched Spotify because they won’t release a proper Apple Watch app with cellular streaming. I prefer to watch JRE so I guess this is just going to be the end of me being able to legitimately consume this content.

runawaybottle• 6 years ago

Sounds a little bit like when Howard Stern first signed a deal to move from terrestrial radio over to satellite radio.

If this brings in a lot more subscribers for top podcasts, then Spotify will do what SiriusXM did with radio hosts, or what Netflix did with comedy specials.

vincentmarle• 6 years ago

I’ve long wondered why Spotify hasn’t done this for music itself? Spotify is in a great position for vertical integration: own the artist, own the content, own the subscriber.

fareesh4• 6 years ago

Unfortunate to see in the discussion that Americans are so disturbed by one Alex Jones that there seems to be an eagerness to empower quasi-government entities to a dystopian, Orwellian degree.

If I wanted to create more Alex Jones characters, this is one way to guarantee it.

dilandau• 6 years ago

Exactly. If anything, it's the insane cancel culture that pushed me to the right.

raptortech• 6 years ago

Americans aren't disturbed by Alex Jones. They're disturbed by the number of Americans who actually believe Alex Jones

fareesh4• 6 years ago

Jones is no more ridiculous or dangerous than your average holy book though.

Furthermore his vision of the future is coming true by being sympathetic to the idea of an all-powerful tech platform.

s1artibartfast2• 6 years ago

I wonder how many that is on any given topic and what our public expectation is.

2% of the population is intellectually disabled (by definition). 7 million Americans fall into this category and will never progress beyond a 3rd grade comprehension.

null0pointer• 6 years ago

Time to archive all clips from Youtube and all old episodes from his website.

kixkin• 6 years ago

This is a place where the JRE technical ignorance (or disregard) screws the audience despite the recent episode with Adam Curry. The beauty of 'podcasts' is the open RSS publishing and subscription. The content creator controls their feed with ease. Forcing people to get the show through a corporate infrastructure is completely contradicting the feeling and (what I thought) the philosophy of the show is (was).

I discourage people from having apps like FB and other apps that pretend to be one thing and do a whole helluva lot more. The pirate ship that was JRE will now be another shill/cog in a bigger grinder. Will the market hold them to any particular standard? I say the thing that brought you over 8M subs should be enough. Grinding and squeezing all the pennies out of it seems unreasonable here.

Just an example of ONE problem being part of the lefty corporate structure is the question: How many 'questionable' or 'offensive' references will be self-censored going forward?

clircle• 6 years ago

Is different than when Howard Stern signed to Sirius XM? Seems like there is some precedence.

plainbrain• 6 years ago

The way I see it, some positives to come out of this:

-Will be fun again to hear "Jamie pull that up" and actually be able to see the content in question on video without any awkwardness.

-Competition for Youtube is needed. This is a massive channel moving ship, may lead others to follow.

-Having controversial guests/topics won't be such a big deal (Assuming Spotify is less beholden to advertisers than youtube because of its premium memberships - for now)

-A smaller audience is not a such a bad thing for Joe, esp if $ is still guaranteed in this exclusive deal. Slightly less eye balls on him, and in turn, less social responsibility, scrutiny and pressure from pseudo justice warriors.

Negatives:

-Exclusivity is in itself a form of censorship. Spotify is yet another company silo that relies on a proprietary ecosystem and pay-walling content.

-You may have to sit through 20 spotify ads in a 3hr podcast (if you don't have premium). Or worse, maybe spotify is not even available in your country.

-Sets a bad precedent, especially given that JRE was always at the forefront of promoting accessibility and openness. This is a move in the other direction, supporting a pay walled, ad-infested solution that is known to underpay artists. A platform that Joe himself was criticizing heavily just a year or two ago...

throwaway122378• 6 years ago

Any ideas on how much the deal was for?

multifasciatus• 6 years ago

Makes sense, the success of bringing the Joe Budden Podcast no exclusively last year opened the way for this.

Very interested to see how video will be on Spotify.

ioseph• 6 years ago

One of my favourite podcasts recently went exclusively to Spotify. Despite paying for premium I've stopped listening.

The podcast experience is awful on Spotify, by far the worst fault is progress gets forgotten, which is completely unacceptable.

willis9366• 6 years ago

Selling quackery wasn’t paying off his mansion mortgage fast enough? Now here’s a guy who sells out as fast as he possibly can. Fuck the message. Fuck the medium. Just get the guy some money.

RaleyField2• 6 years ago

"Spotify is currently not available in your country."

Take my euros goddarnit. Probably fights involving licensing agreements, or competition buying whole markets. I don't know if I should play at being an international spy and buy VPN just for Rogan or just pirate it out of the general principle.

mikemotherwell• 6 years ago

Does anyone have any inkling of what he was offered? Gimlet got hundreds of millions for a barely breakeven business - what is the Howard Stern of Podcasting worth on an exclusive deal?

sfgweilr4f2• 6 years ago

More likely Youtube are too difficult to work with and their ever-present-but-arbitrary ban-hammer is becoming increasingly high friction.

fergie• 6 years ago

Maybe a stupid question, but does this mean that the podcast will be audio-only from the 1st september or will the videos still be published somewhere?

dolguldur• 6 years ago

WSJ estimates this deal to be worth more than $100M.

I hope Joe Rogan has a plan for how to invest a good chunk of this for greater good. IMHO this kind of sum comes with a responsibility to do something with it that goes beyond your family and friends. (Like Tim Ferris does now for psychedelics research).

Judging by how I perceive him from the show, I don’t think he’s just greedy and wants that much for himself. Either there’s some detail in the contract that allows him to break free in case Spotify tries to censor too hard. Or he already has some longer-term thing in mind that he needs the capital for.

One nice detail is that they’d be free to play music.

TheUndead96• 6 years ago

He should just go self-hosted. If anyone has the resource to make that happen it is him.

ecmascript• 6 years ago

Sad, I don't have a spotify account I am for sure not gonna get one just to listen to JRE. I hate this kind of shit in the podcasting world.

Right now, the overwhelming majority of podcasts are open and if it were to change that would be a dark and sad day.

heinrichhartman• 6 years ago

“attacked transgender people, gay men, women, people of color and countless marginalized groups at every opportunity.”

What a gross misrepresentation. Have the listened to any of his shows?

jackric• 6 years ago

every opportunity

There's your bullshit indicator

sambe• 6 years ago

Who started this "exclusive" nonsense? This article suggests Spotify made some moves before Apple started:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696666/apple-podcast-ex...

dkobia• 6 years ago

I absolutely love Spotify, but for some reason I just can't get with it on podcasts. I'm not sure if it's the interface or maybe I just like to keep my music and podcasting separate? They're both audio yes -- but completely different somehow.

Balero• 6 years ago

I agree. I find i don't always finish a podcast in one sitting, say half of it on my way in to work.

Then I want to listen to music during the day/at the gym etc. But if I use the same thing, then I lose my place in the podcast, and I can't start up again.

toofy• 6 years ago

Rogan’s claim to be doing this as message to Youtube is silly. He’s signing a contract to do a “podcast” with spotify where his “podcast” will not be a podcast at all. Podcasts are not platform specific. They’re open and distributed to any app which can read the RSS file.

This is nothing but an act on his part to appeal to the outrage brigade.

Re spotify, theyve been heavily ramping up their podcasts lately and doing exclusive/semi-exclusive content all over the place. If you care about the health of our podcast ecosystem, fight this any way you can–podcasts need to remain open. Our current trajectory is a straight line path to paying for podcasts which will have forced ads to go along with paying for them. That’s the road we’re on.

coding_lobster2• 6 years ago

I've never heard about the "podcast" quality being conditioned on platform availability.

afiori11• 6 years ago

It is likely not in the definition, but "Spotify-exclusive podcast" sounds a lot like "Chrome-only website".

They are podcasts and websites respectively, they just go against the effective spirit of the medium.

aww_dang• 6 years ago

Spotify always asks me to sign in or tells me that I can't listen to embedded media in a given country. I've never successfully played any media they've hosted.

Easier and simpler to download or stream elsewhere with no signup or red tape.

I suspect this is more about the money for Rogan. His content isn't essential for me. He often has contradictory takes as he seeks to placate his guests. That's fine for his particular interview format, but his inconsistency combined with censorship grandstanding and an exclusive contract strikes me as opportunist.

He's never been known as someone who speaks truth to power. If anything he's a conformist who wears his derision of conformism on his shirtsleeves. Feels like this is mostly to placate his audience.

Good on him, I hope he continues to earn money with his brand.

_Mark• 6 years ago

This is a huge changing of the guard play. You have to give credit towards Spotify for this move, and what could signify a pivotal point in changing history.

The fact there is a paying subscription model behind Spotify, I can see a future where all podcasts move towards this platform.

MaxBarraclough• 6 years ago

To be clear you don't need to subscribe to Spotify to use it to play podcasts. They don't even play ads.

From their point of view it's presumably a loss-leader that gives them brand awareness.

codecamper• 6 years ago

ok. well i certainly won't be use Spotify now to see this thick necked, horrible tattooed moron douchebag.

Spotify giving him 100M in the middle of a crisis seems particularly tone deaf.

icebr9• 6 years ago

It's 2020 and I can't set the content language in Spotify to other language than my native.

It's literally impossible for me in Europe to discover any american podcast becasue I all the categories for podcasts are full of my native language only content.

Same with music playlists by spotify - they are mix between English and my Native language -> shite.

wooger• 6 years ago

Regardless of what you think of Rogan ,this is horrible news for podcasts and independent internet culture in general.

Podcasts can easily be entirely free of platforms, networks, editorial control and reliance on advertising, and many of them still are. I hope that at some point we can stop calling anything that doesn't have an rss/atom feed pointing to audio files a podcast, as they don't deserve that name.

I've already abandoned one podcast which moved to Spotify exclusive (The last podcast on the left) out of principle.

Re the view of Rogan, I find it fascinating that Joe is viewed as some kind of right wing chauvinistic demagogue because he has a few controversial guests, and states views in line with 99.9% of the worlds population.

Contrast with someone like Louis Theroux, who has repeatedly visited and palled around with all sorts of controversial people, including white supremacists, Joe Exotic & the Westboro baptist church, all while holding onto an entirely neutral reputation.

st1ck2• 6 years ago

OTOH it's kinda good news for podcasters, because it frees up a spot in the itunes top.

thorin• 6 years ago

I always download JRE as an MP3 rather than use a podcast platform or streaming service (or Youtube). Is this going to change that or is the MP3 still available? Joe must be making a frickin mint!

jokit2• 6 years ago

I hope and doubt this will change JRE much.

On the topic of libertarianism..

Almost all statists share some libertarian perspective on some issues. No libertarian has statist perspective on any issues. There are a lot of self proclaimed libertarians, Christians, Muslims, or people of any principle, who are incorrect. Unlike "Republican" and "Democratic" which don't mean anything, "libertarian" means something. You can claim you are "libertarian" just like you can claim you're a "martian", but it doesn't make it so.

Joe Rogan and Adam Carolla are not the only two who mistakenly call themselves "libertarian" at times. They just don't know what it means.

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." — L. Neil Smith

rrrrrrrrrrrryan• 6 years ago

This is a little "no true Scotsman," no?

Self-identification is probably the best indicator we've got for whether a label applies to a person. If enough new people label themselves a thing, and use the word to mean something different, I'd argue the word itself has begun to change, or at least has aquired multiple definitions.

Coopting a label in the political sense sucks (see: "liberal"), but from a linguistic perspective it's silly to pretend language doesn't evolve.

jokit2• 6 years ago

Like "Literally" "evolving" to mean "metaphorically"?

When "X" becomes "Not X", that's not evolution but coopting. It's degradation, and it's often purposeful.

"Libertarian" means something, which is why the "Libertarian Party" required an oath to adhere to the non-aggression principle. The fact that statists moved in to ruin the "Libertarian Party", take the oath and betray it, may make them "Libertarian Party" members, but doesn't make them libertarian (in fact, the opposite).

Are you a Christian if you're not Christian but call yourself "Christian"? Are you an atheist if you believe in a god? Are you "blind" if you have perfect vision?

I realize that this assault on reality/truth is at the heart of many issues today.. We have no language if things can mean both a thing, and/or the opposite of that thing.

...which is the point.

You may have a libertarian perspective on an issue, or a group of issues (as almost everyone does), but that doesn't make you libertarian, which means liberty in all issues. There is a line between minarchist and anarchist, and a reason for both terms.

Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

Related Stories