5 ms·

Technically speaking the way Podcasts work is a fascinating thing. Most on HN May be familiar with this already but Podcasts are completely open and a creator

by lbacaj 8y ago

Technically speaking the way Podcasts work is a fascinating thing. Most on HN May be familiar with this already but Podcasts are completely open and a creator simply publishes an RSS that they then provide to a podcast App such as iTunes so it can appear on the Apple podcast app. In exchange most of these podcast apps share any listen counts and analytics with the owner of the Podcast. However, almost always the files are hosted by the owner so the plays could also likely be counted that way. Even the artwork and everything is provided with this RSS that is completely open. More and more platforms are popping up creating “exclusive” podcasts and trying to close the ecosystem down. Not sure if that’s what is happening here, it’s unclear from the article, but just think Podcasts are one of those last few technically open things on the internet and that’s great. They are so open in fact I was planning on adding them to my audio App I’ve been building which lets people listen to any article right now. The more this closes up the less of an opportunity for people to create useful things and for people to find new ways to stay informed. As a shameless self promotion if your interested in having articles read to you on the go try my app https://articulu.com https://articulu.com

djhworld 8y ago
> More and more platforms are popping up creating “exclusive” podcasts and trying to close the ecosystem down. It already is happening, some podcasts on BBC Sounds are exclusive to BBC Sounds (albeit for a time limited period)
anc84 8y ago
Patreon is full of closed off podcasts available to only the people with a paid subscribtion.
- snapdangle 8y ago
  Which are nevertheless accessible from any podcast app. To suggest that Google trying to muscle into the podcast space by leveraging their search engine to direct people not to the podcast feed but to their own service is in any way equivalent to small creators adding value to their listeners by providing exclusive content is absurd to say the least.
simias 8y ago
Admittedly I don't consume a massive amount of podcasts but I don't have a problem with this move towards a more closed platform. If people want to make money from their work as podcasters they basically have three possibilities: beg for donations, ad tons of ads before, after and often in the middle of the podcasts or move to a subscription model (which means the podcast is no longer available for free). Since I vehemently despise ads I have no issues with the subscription model as long as it remains convenient to play the audio any way I feel like (i.e. no intrusive DRM). So I actually think that's a good evolution overall, I wish more of the internet moved away from ads and towards other monetization models. For your audio app I suppose that it'll mean that you'll have to strike a deal with the podcast platforms to share some of the revenue or figure out an API to let people use their license keys on third party players. I understand that it's annoying but that sounds perfectly fair to me.
- djhworld 8y ago
  I subscribe to Giant Bomb (a video games website) and they have a premium tier for content. The podcasts are available for free, but funded by ads, or you can subscribe to the premium feed where the ads are edited out.
  - mikewhy 8y ago
    Ah good old videogames.com. Yeah premium podcasts are already a thing. There's no need to "figure out an API to let people use their license keys on third party players", it's simply HTTP Basic authentication embedded in the URL. Should work just about anywhere.
    - ascagnel_ 8y ago
      I'm also a premium subscriber; while they used to use basic HTTP auth, they've since switched to generating revocable, per-user keys. It's both better for security and easier for podcast clients to manage.
      - voxadam 8y ago
scarface74 8y ago
More and more platforms are popping up creating “exclusive” podcasts I think the issue is that you put the emphasis on “exclusive” instead of “podcasts”. If it isn’t delivered over an RSS feed that I can subscribe to in my podcast player of choice, it’s not a podcast.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Seems odd to define a thing by how it's packaged and consumed rather than the content itself. An episodic internet radio show doesn't stop being a podcast just because you're listening to it through winamp. Would all it take to convince you that a podcast can delivered via something other than RSS, say ActivityPub, be your preferred client supporting it?
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Why is that odd? I expect a web page to be viewable in my browser and to be delivered over http and use a combination of html, css, and JavaScript. Calling some thing that is not playable in my podcast app and doesn’t use the same protocols as my other podcasts, isn’t a podcast. No more than a Word Doc is a web page. I expect to be able to subscribe to a podcast using my podcast player via RSS.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    > Seems odd to define a thing by how it's packaged and consumed rather than the content itself. You mean like TV shows? And radio shows? And newspaper comics?
    - Spivak 8y ago
      I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that all of those things are completely divorced from their original medium. Saying that podcasts have to be consumed via RSS is like saying that TV must be delivered via cable.
      - scarface74 8y ago
rbinv 8y ago
You seem to be rather shameless yourself as you're still annoyingly dropping links to your app any chance you get (almost no matter the topic). This was even mentioned to you roughly a month ago by someone else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287119 Didn't seem to have much of a lasting impact on you.
- jaredcwhite 8y ago
  Well I for one don't mind it because that's how I found out about the service in question and am really enjoying using it. If the OP has something of interest to say in the comment, the "signature" link is no problem IMHO.
keypress 8y ago
Probably is a drive from the BBC itself into a closed DRM platform. Their BBC Sounds app is woeful. License fee payers are treated like complete dirt. Being charged multiple times for the same content. It's about time the BBC just became a subscription service. Older content should just be left on Torrents, and be available for re-sampling. They are absolute cretins.
- saaaaaam 8y ago
  Charged multiple times? Is there a paid subscription/pay per item element to BBC Sounds now? I’ve not used it in a while.
  - keypress 8y ago
    Side issue, at some point (probably still are) they were selling downloadable DRM content (not noticed with Sounds), of shows you have already paid for. I'm still bitter about their digital archive project that they wasted so much money on. License fee funded content should be liberated. I know licensing is difficult when it comes to partnerships, but it highlights another broken part of the license fee. Their archives would be really useful to liberate. I've succombed in the past to buying DVDs of series. And the quality is really poor. So I've already paid twice. The BBC is quite good value for money but the license fee makes me sick, especially when they comercially are exploiting it. The radio shows used to be downloadable without the songs due to license constraints. I'm guessing Sounds allows them via some kind of DRM to include music, but even at 28 days they time-out for me within the app a little too fast.
jccalhoun 8y ago
>if your interested if you're interested

by lbacaj 8y ago

djhworld 8y ago

> More and more platforms are popping up creating “exclusive” podcasts and trying to close the ecosystem down. It already is happening, some podcasts on BBC Sounds are exclusive to BBC Sounds (albeit for a time limited period)

anc84 8y ago

Patreon is full of closed off podcasts available to only the people with a paid subscribtion.

snapdangle 8y ago
Which are nevertheless accessible from any podcast app. To suggest that Google trying to muscle into the podcast space by leveraging their search engine to direct people not to the podcast feed but to their own service is in any way equivalent to small creators adding value to their listeners by providing exclusive content is absurd to say the least.

simias 8y ago

Admittedly I don't consume a massive amount of podcasts but I don't have a problem with this move towards a more closed platform. If people want to make money from their work as podcasters they basically have three possibilities: beg for donations, ad tons of ads before, after and often in the middle of the podcasts or move to a subscription model (which means the podcast is no longer available for free). Since I vehemently despise ads I have no issues with the subscription model as long as it remains convenient to play the audio any way I feel like (i.e. no intrusive DRM). So I actually think that's a good evolution overall, I wish more of the internet moved away from ads and towards other monetization models. For your audio app I suppose that it'll mean that you'll have to strike a deal with the podcast platforms to share some of the revenue or figure out an API to let people use their license keys on third party players. I understand that it's annoying but that sounds perfectly fair to me.

djhworld 8y ago
I subscribe to Giant Bomb (a video games website) and they have a premium tier for content. The podcasts are available for free, but funded by ads, or you can subscribe to the premium feed where the ads are edited out.
- mikewhy 8y ago
  Ah good old videogames.com. Yeah premium podcasts are already a thing. There's no need to "figure out an API to let people use their license keys on third party players", it's simply HTTP Basic authentication embedded in the URL. Should work just about anywhere.
  - ascagnel_ 8y ago
    I'm also a premium subscriber; while they used to use basic HTTP auth, they've since switched to generating revocable, per-user keys. It's both better for security and easier for podcast clients to manage.
    - voxadam 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

More and more platforms are popping up creating “exclusive” podcasts I think the issue is that you put the emphasis on “exclusive” instead of “podcasts”. If it isn’t delivered over an RSS feed that I can subscribe to in my podcast player of choice, it’s not a podcast.

Spivak 8y ago
Seems odd to define a thing by how it's packaged and consumed rather than the content itself. An episodic internet radio show doesn't stop being a podcast just because you're listening to it through winamp. Would all it take to convince you that a podcast can delivered via something other than RSS, say ActivityPub, be your preferred client supporting it?
- scarface74 8y ago
  Why is that odd? I expect a web page to be viewable in my browser and to be delivered over http and use a combination of html, css, and JavaScript. Calling some thing that is not playable in my podcast app and doesn’t use the same protocols as my other podcasts, isn’t a podcast. No more than a Word Doc is a web page. I expect to be able to subscribe to a podcast using my podcast player via RSS.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > Seems odd to define a thing by how it's packaged and consumed rather than the content itself. You mean like TV shows? And radio shows? And newspaper comics?
  - Spivak 8y ago
    I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that all of those things are completely divorced from their original medium. Saying that podcasts have to be consumed via RSS is like saying that TV must be delivered via cable.
    - scarface74 8y ago

rbinv 8y ago

You seem to be rather shameless yourself as you're still annoyingly dropping links to your app any chance you get (almost no matter the topic). This was even mentioned to you roughly a month ago by someone else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287119 Didn't seem to have much of a lasting impact on you.

jaredcwhite 8y ago
Well I for one don't mind it because that's how I found out about the service in question and am really enjoying using it. If the OP has something of interest to say in the comment, the "signature" link is no problem IMHO.

keypress 8y ago

Probably is a drive from the BBC itself into a closed DRM platform. Their BBC Sounds app is woeful. License fee payers are treated like complete dirt. Being charged multiple times for the same content. It's about time the BBC just became a subscription service. Older content should just be left on Torrents, and be available for re-sampling. They are absolute cretins.

saaaaaam 8y ago
Charged multiple times? Is there a paid subscription/pay per item element to BBC Sounds now? I’ve not used it in a while.
- keypress 8y ago
  Side issue, at some point (probably still are) they were selling downloadable DRM content (not noticed with Sounds), of shows you have already paid for. I'm still bitter about their digital archive project that they wasted so much money on. License fee funded content should be liberated. I know licensing is difficult when it comes to partnerships, but it highlights another broken part of the license fee. Their archives would be really useful to liberate. I've succombed in the past to buying DVDs of series. And the quality is really poor. So I've already paid twice. The BBC is quite good value for money but the license fee makes me sick, especially when they comercially are exploiting it. The radio shows used to be downloadable without the songs due to license constraints. I'm guessing Sounds allows them via some kind of DRM to include music, but even at 28 days they time-out for me within the app a little too fast.

jccalhoun 8y ago

>if your interested if you're interested