3 ms·

While I agree there are plenty of great podcasts out there, I disagree with some of the things in the article. > When Netflix moved into streaming, they invest

While I agree there are plenty of great podcasts out there, I disagree with some of the things in the article. > When Netflix moved into streaming, they invested billions of dollars into original programming, helping usher in the “New Golden Age of Television” The current age of TV started long before Netflix moved to original content. This is not a model anyone should want to see in podcasts. Closed wall content is bad for everyone. > For listeners, there will be more amazing shows of all kinds. More media companies will invest in creating quality long-form audio. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. I listen to and enjoy some expensive, high production corporate podcasts. But I greatly prefer independent podcasts. So many corporate ones are overproduced (eg Radio Lab) or are full of ads, begging for money, cross promotions, and other non-content (eg 99% Invisible). I'm concerned that high budget shows will push out high quality indie shows and make them harder to find. > Spotify will create more exclusive content to aggregate and retain listeners. This is terrible for everyone except Spotify. Closed wall content is bad for everyone. Despite being a paid Spotify user I will not listen to any Spotify exclusives. If you become a Spotify exclusive you're dead to me.

jacobmoe 8y ago
> Closed wall content is bad for everyone. You said that twice. It's not bad for subscribers. There's a good argument to be made that ad-driven content is bad for everyone. In fact there's an argument to be made that ad-driven content is ushering in the end of the world. Who was it that said "we're building dystopia to maximize clicks." If you pay for your media, you at least know what the product really is.
- driverdan 8y ago
  > You said that twice. Yes, intentionally. > There's a good argument to be made that ad-driven content is bad for everyone. No disagreement here. I donate to independent podcasts directly. They get 100% of the money. Many of them have no ads or two versions, one that's free with ads or one that's paid with no ads. It's the best of both worlds.
  - oska 8y ago
    > Many of them have no ads or two versions, one that's free with ads or one that's paid with no ads. It's the best of both worlds. I disagree with this strategy. In my opinion, pushing advertising on anyone is immoral and just because I can pay to get out of it doesn't absolve the podcaster who's still putting ads in the 'free' version. A good podcaster doesn't push ads, full stop.

jacobmoe 8y ago

> Closed wall content is bad for everyone. You said that twice. It's not bad for subscribers. There's a good argument to be made that ad-driven content is bad for everyone. In fact there's an argument to be made that ad-driven content is ushering in the end of the world. Who was it that said "we're building dystopia to maximize clicks." If you pay for your media, you at least know what the product really is.

driverdan 8y ago
> You said that twice. Yes, intentionally. > There's a good argument to be made that ad-driven content is bad for everyone. No disagreement here. I donate to independent podcasts directly. They get 100% of the money. Many of them have no ads or two versions, one that's free with ads or one that's paid with no ads. It's the best of both worlds.
- oska 8y ago
  > Many of them have no ads or two versions, one that's free with ads or one that's paid with no ads. It's the best of both worlds. I disagree with this strategy. In my opinion, pushing advertising on anyone is immoral and just because I can pay to get out of it doesn't absolve the podcaster who's still putting ads in the 'free' version. A good podcaster doesn't push ads, full stop.