5 ms·

What is the difference between exclusive podcasts and making a website that only runs on Safari? In both scenarios it is a company giving their product an arti

What is the difference between exclusive podcasts and making a website that only runs on Safari? In both scenarios it is a company giving their product an artificial advantage. There's no technical reason that a website should only run on one browser, it kind of feels the same way with podcasts. Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that, so I guess my viewpoint is contradictory.

anchpop 7y ago
> Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that There are arguments for why this could be a bad thing. Originals/exclusives have the effect of giving an "unfair" advantage to the company who makes them, because to watch them you need to subscribe to their service. This allows them to compete in avenues other than price and quality of service. This is a similar issue to movie studios owning theater chains, the customers benefit from being able to go see the latest blockbuster at any theater they want, instead of only at company theaters. The counterpoint is that this makes exclusives more valuable to a streaming service than the average tv show, which means more might get funded than if exclusives were illegal
- dymk 7y ago
  I don't understand why we're all of a sudden so concerned with exclusivity. Many high-profile games are platform exclusives, HBO is exclusive, Spotify has artist-exclusive recordings. The world still spins 'round. There exists a sliding scale between "100% an agnostic platform" and "100% creates and hosts only exclusive content", both of which have existed for decades, and now people are worried that Apple is funding podcasts?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    People have argued against all of those. Apple is the new one, hence people will argue against it now. Plus, at least Netflix et all try to be cross-platform (even if we Linux users are often left in the cold). Will I need an Apple device to listen to these podcasts? If so, that's rather different than those other cases.
- baddox 7y ago
  I mean, yeah, all else being equal, it would be better for consumers to have access to any content they want on any app or device. But it's a bit difficult to imagine how "making exclusives illegal" would work, exactly. Would content producers be required to sell their content to every distribution network for the same price, so that every streaming service could, if they wanted to, make a profit by effectively charging more for the content? What if the content producer just wanted to sell the raw video file of their movie to consumers directly? I.e. you go to the movie's website, pay, and download an .mp4 file? That's not much different than how Netflix works, except that DRM makes it tricky for the layperson to move that file around to other devices or video players. So perhaps what this law would look like is just a ban on DRM, although even if that happened, and the content producer had an app or website that took payment and served DRM-free video files, there's no simple way to move that file around, particularly on mobile phones or TV streaming boxes, so I think the sheer convenience of using the content producer's app or website would still result in largely the same "unfair" advantage to large content producers or unions of content producers. Another legal alternative might be to simply require content producers and distribution networks to be owned by different companies. I believe that idea has been proposed by Elizabeth Warren and others, although I don't know if it's a very fully-fledged proposal or if it would be a good idea. It seems like the distribution networks would still have massive economies of scale and thus the few really big networks would have leverage over customers and content producers that would still result in a lot of exclusivity.
  - hoschicz 7y ago
    > Would content producers be required to sell their content to every distribution network for the same price, so that every streaming service could, if they wanted to, make a profit by effectively charging more for the content? No. The platform (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) would have to have a different ownership structure than the content creator. This would allow the studios to sell their shows to whoever they want under whatever terms they want (presumably to the highest bidder). This should theoretically let the free market work effectively. This (separation of platform from product on said platform) is the basis for many proposals for breaking up "big tech" and is IMO the way to go.
baddox 7y ago
There are also plenty of audio productions which cost money but which would otherwise clearly be identified as "podcasts" if they were free and listed on podcast directories. The Howard Stern Show, for instance. So I think the issue here is clearly just about the semantics of the term "podcast" and how people apparently strongly identify the term with free audio content available on multiple platforms. Presumably people wouldn't be too upset with Apple hiring Howard Stern to do a video interview series distributed on its premium video streaming platform. But apparently people would be upset if Apple hired Howard Stern to do an audio interview series distributed on its so-called "Podcasts" app.
reaperducer 7y ago
What is the difference between exclusive podcasts and making a website that only runs on Safari? Ask Google, which is actively encouraging people to write web sites that only work on Chrome. Sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's not. Netflix and Hulu and other streamers are allowed to make and distribute original content. Since 1987 in the United States, aside from news, TV networks aren't allowed to make and distribute their own content. Apple was allowed to have exclusive albums on iTunes ("iTunes Originals"). Large movie producers aren't allowed to make and show their own content in their own theaters. Maybe someday the regulations that apply to other media will catch up to internet streamers. But that's not where we are today.
- mevile 7y ago
  > Ask Google, which is actively encouraging people to write web sites that only work on Chrome. Do you have an example of this claim? I'd be interested to see Google saying anything of the sort.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Since 1987 in the United States, aside from news, TV networks aren't allowed to make and distribute their own content. That hasn’t been the case for years. Look no further than ABC/Disney and “Agents of Shield”, CW (owned jointly by CBS/Warner) and all of the DC related programs, Fox (until Disney bought part of Fox), FoxNetworks and the Simpsons.
- cco 7y ago
  > Ask Google, which is actively encouraging people to write web sites that only work on Chrome. Why would I ask Google? We’re talking about Apple Podcasts.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    The parent comment asked about Safari, not Apple Podcasts, and a comparison was being made in the browser space.
- Mindwipe 7y ago

anchpop 7y ago

> Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that There are arguments for why this could be a bad thing. Originals/exclusives have the effect of giving an "unfair" advantage to the company who makes them, because to watch them you need to subscribe to their service. This allows them to compete in avenues other than price and quality of service. This is a similar issue to movie studios owning theater chains, the customers benefit from being able to go see the latest blockbuster at any theater they want, instead of only at company theaters. The counterpoint is that this makes exclusives more valuable to a streaming service than the average tv show, which means more might get funded than if exclusives were illegal

dymk 7y ago
I don't understand why we're all of a sudden so concerned with exclusivity. Many high-profile games are platform exclusives, HBO is exclusive, Spotify has artist-exclusive recordings. The world still spins 'round. There exists a sliding scale between "100% an agnostic platform" and "100% creates and hosts only exclusive content", both of which have existed for decades, and now people are worried that Apple is funding podcasts?
- icebraining 7y ago
  People have argued against all of those. Apple is the new one, hence people will argue against it now. Plus, at least Netflix et all try to be cross-platform (even if we Linux users are often left in the cold). Will I need an Apple device to listen to these podcasts? If so, that's rather different than those other cases.
baddox 7y ago
I mean, yeah, all else being equal, it would be better for consumers to have access to any content they want on any app or device. But it's a bit difficult to imagine how "making exclusives illegal" would work, exactly. Would content producers be required to sell their content to every distribution network for the same price, so that every streaming service could, if they wanted to, make a profit by effectively charging more for the content? What if the content producer just wanted to sell the raw video file of their movie to consumers directly? I.e. you go to the movie's website, pay, and download an .mp4 file? That's not much different than how Netflix works, except that DRM makes it tricky for the layperson to move that file around to other devices or video players. So perhaps what this law would look like is just a ban on DRM, although even if that happened, and the content producer had an app or website that took payment and served DRM-free video files, there's no simple way to move that file around, particularly on mobile phones or TV streaming boxes, so I think the sheer convenience of using the content producer's app or website would still result in largely the same "unfair" advantage to large content producers or unions of content producers. Another legal alternative might be to simply require content producers and distribution networks to be owned by different companies. I believe that idea has been proposed by Elizabeth Warren and others, although I don't know if it's a very fully-fledged proposal or if it would be a good idea. It seems like the distribution networks would still have massive economies of scale and thus the few really big networks would have leverage over customers and content producers that would still result in a lot of exclusivity.
- hoschicz 7y ago
  > Would content producers be required to sell their content to every distribution network for the same price, so that every streaming service could, if they wanted to, make a profit by effectively charging more for the content? No. The platform (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) would have to have a different ownership structure than the content creator. This would allow the studios to sell their shows to whoever they want under whatever terms they want (presumably to the highest bidder). This should theoretically let the free market work effectively. This (separation of platform from product on said platform) is the basis for many proposals for breaking up "big tech" and is IMO the way to go.

baddox 7y ago

There are also plenty of audio productions which cost money but which would otherwise clearly be identified as "podcasts" if they were free and listed on podcast directories. The Howard Stern Show, for instance. So I think the issue here is clearly just about the semantics of the term "podcast" and how people apparently strongly identify the term with free audio content available on multiple platforms. Presumably people wouldn't be too upset with Apple hiring Howard Stern to do a video interview series distributed on its premium video streaming platform. But apparently people would be upset if Apple hired Howard Stern to do an audio interview series distributed on its so-called "Podcasts" app.

reaperducer 7y ago

What is the difference between exclusive podcasts and making a website that only runs on Safari? Ask Google, which is actively encouraging people to write web sites that only work on Chrome. Sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's not. Netflix and Hulu and other streamers are allowed to make and distribute original content. Since 1987 in the United States, aside from news, TV networks aren't allowed to make and distribute their own content. Apple was allowed to have exclusive albums on iTunes ("iTunes Originals"). Large movie producers aren't allowed to make and show their own content in their own theaters. Maybe someday the regulations that apply to other media will catch up to internet streamers. But that's not where we are today.

mevile 7y ago
> Ask Google, which is actively encouraging people to write web sites that only work on Chrome. Do you have an example of this claim? I'd be interested to see Google saying anything of the sort.
scarface74 7y ago
Since 1987 in the United States, aside from news, TV networks aren't allowed to make and distribute their own content. That hasn’t been the case for years. Look no further than ABC/Disney and “Agents of Shield”, CW (owned jointly by CBS/Warner) and all of the DC related programs, Fox (until Disney bought part of Fox), FoxNetworks and the Simpsons.
cco 7y ago
> Ask Google, which is actively encouraging people to write web sites that only work on Chrome. Why would I ask Google? We’re talking about Apple Podcasts.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  The parent comment asked about Safari, not Apple Podcasts, and a comparison was being made in the browser space.
Mindwipe 7y ago