manton
manton

Not sure where Apple is going with exclusive podcasts, but it’s probably nowhere good. By default I’m against any “podcast” that can’t play in multiple podcast apps because it erodes the openness of the ecosystem.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
mangochutney
mangochutney

@manton I rather see them bank roll it and keep it open to make a clear statement they have the cash and it’s just stupid to try and stake off a market that is essentially stupid to try and regulate.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
rom
rom

@manton I agree. If it will be exclusive, I just hope that it is time-bound -- perhaps exclusive only for a week.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
fahrni
fahrni

@manton I can hear it now, in Tim’s Southern accent: “and we call it, Apple Podcasts +. It’s available today for $9.99.” - It only works with their player because it’s behind a paywall. I really hope I’m wrong. I fear them giving up their directory more than original content.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
johnbrayton
johnbrayton

@fahrni @fahrni @manton Services revenue!

I’d love to see another organization — ideally a non-profit collaboration — maintain a separate directory of podcasts.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
manton
manton

@johnbrayton @fahrni Yeah, it's possible we've relied on Apple providing this for too long. Other apps have a directory but it's usually more of a mirror of Apple's.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
smokey
smokey

@johnbrayton @fahrni @manton Part of the post I’ve been meaning to write ever since the Core Int episode about Spotify & friends was to advocate that podcasters band together and create an independent foundation to advocate for and steer the industry. One of the reasons for that was to have a place for the Apple podcast directory to land in case Apple tired of salutary neglect and discontinued it…I didn’t anticipate Apple moving in the other (media conglomerate) direction… :-(

|
Embed
Progress spinner
Bruce
Bruce

@smokey @johnbrayton @fahrni @manton I wonder if SAG-AFTRA would be interested in organizing the industry. After all, they have a little bit of experience helping performers band together to advocate for their interests. Union 💪.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
furstenberg
furstenberg

@manton I like @jsnell ’s definition on this one, “audio content” and not podcast.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@furstenberg no no no .. please not ‘content’ ... please

|
Embed
Progress spinner
furstenberg
furstenberg

@JohnPhilpin Well I think it’s the closest of a description I’ve heard so far. Because I doubt it will be a podcast.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@furstenberg this is why

|
Embed
Progress spinner
furstenberg
furstenberg

@JohnPhilpin Good reason. My follow up question would then be what do you think it should be called?

I’m failing to come up with anything. It would not be radio, would it? They already have that. And not podcasts. Audio books? That could be part of it.

But what would something that’s similar to a radio show or a podcast be called?

|
Embed
Progress spinner
philipbrewer
philipbrewer

@furstenberg What's wrong with podcast?

|
Embed
Progress spinner
furstenberg
furstenberg

@philipbrewer I doubt Apple will release this audio in a feed that I can subscribe to and download in Overcast.

And if the audio is locked in a single app I personally don’t think that is a podcast. It’s something else. And that’s where the “audio content” description came from.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
philipbrewer
philipbrewer

@furstenberg Right! If it's not an RSS feed of audio files, it's not a podcast. But it's also not anything I'm very interested in, so giving it a disparaging name like "audio content" would be fine with me.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
manton
manton

@furstenberg Agreed. I just linked to his latest in Macworld too.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
smokey
smokey

@furstenberg @JohnPhilpin @philipbrewer You could call it an “audio show” or an “audio program(me)”, or “audio series” to avoid that c-word. They’re not much better, but they match existing terms from other media.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
JohnPhilpin
JohnPhilpin

@smokey @furstenberg @philipbrewer 👍

|
Embed
Progress spinner
fahrni
fahrni

@smokey I’ve had a similar thought, mine was just about having a coop to host the directory, with an easy to use API.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
fahrni
fahrni

@johnbrayton @manton Yes, yes, yes. 💯

|
Embed
Progress spinner
Bruce
Bruce

@smokey Did they have a specific term for Howard Stern’s show when he was a Sirius exclusive? //@furstenberg @johnphilpin @manton @philipbrewer

|
Embed
Progress spinner
furstenberg
furstenberg

@smokey But they are better! 😃

Thank you.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
smokey
smokey

@Bruce I think if we get to the point where unionizing/labor relations is necessary, we will have already lost podcasting :-( Right now, podcasting is something anyone can do, on any subject, host on any website, and anyone can listen to said podcast on any podcast client (including just a web browser). There’s no (massive) power imbalance, no restricted distribution opportunities (e.g., 3 TV networks and 5 movie studios, or whatever it used to be in the old days), and attendant barriers to entry. (Obviously there’s some imbalance around advertising and production funding with the podcast networks and other media entities that also produce podcasts, but, fundamentally “Smokey’s Random Thoughts” is the same as “The Daily” or “Mac Power Users” in terms of access to users, distribution method, and ability to create.) Podcasters, collectively, direct their own industry. My familiarity with entertainment unions is limited, but I don’t exactly see how SAG-AFTRA fits in that world (I understand it in the traditional employer/employee world, a la studio/actor or production company/actor), and in protecting podcasting from being coopted by deep pockets looking to silo it.… // @johnbrayton @fahrni @manton

|
Embed
Progress spinner
smokey
smokey

@fahrni I think that’s a great idea and should definitely be done.

Part of the reason I went further with my proposal was because I’d read an article last fall/winter (in The Atlantic, maybe?) about what had happened to RSS; Dave Winer gave the spec to Harvard, which froze it and said that’s it, RSS is done, nothing to see here, move along.

The article argued that because of that, since the “industry”/format/spec was “controlled” by an institution that had no interest in that role and was disconnected from the actual stakeholders, there was no-one to steer RSS, to help it adapt and address/fend off challenges from new ways of reading/aggregating content (closed silos), etc. As a result, there was no innovation (aside from Google Reader, which died) and we now also have Atom and JSON Feed, and a world of dominant silos and feedless blogs, and only now are we starting to see new developments based on RSS/feeds (Micro.blog, IndieWeb readers and the like…) to adapt to the changing social syndication environment.

And we want to avoid that with podcasting, avoid exclusive audio programs that aren’t available in feeds and playable in all clients co-opting the term “podcast”, avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of turbo-growth-addicted VC-backed companies and their eventual owners like Spotify, or media-titan companies like Apple, and so forth. Adapt to changing conditions and keep podcasting accessible and universal. And, of course, safeguard the podcast directory from Apple either shutting it down or closing it off.

There’s my blog post in a really rough nutshell ;-) // @johnbrayton @manton

|
Embed
Progress spinner
manton
manton

@smokey That's an interesting perspective, and probably a good argument for us continuing to update the JSON Feed spec. There are some tweaks that I've wanted to incorporate and haven't made time to do yet.

|
Embed
Progress spinner
smokey
smokey

@manton 👍

I think it’s probably also helpful to look at “stewardship of the podcasting community” through the gardening analogy. In this case less pulling weeds and more fertilizing, watering, mulching, building new trellises to support new growth/innovation….

|
Embed
Progress spinner