11 ms·

Cool idea? Yes. Good idea? No. If we do stuff like this, the podcast industry will switch to a closed system which would require you to install proprietary app

Cool idea? Yes. Good idea? No. If we do stuff like this, the podcast industry will switch to a closed system which would require you to install proprietary apps to listen to stuff. Likely several different apps for different shows and companies. As it exists today, it's a very open system, with publicly accessible feeds and the ability to use any app. Don't ruin it. It's not hard to press the "skip forward 30 seconds" button when an ad starts playing. Edit: also, it's super unethical to have a paid app that profits by taking away any scope for content creators to monetize. Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Didn't realise it was a paid app at first. Shame on you, OP.

windsurfer 7y ago
By your own logic, podcasters would be releasing their own proprietary apps to prevent users from pressing the "skip forward 30 seconds" button when an ad starts playing. Why isn't that happening?
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Because right now they're counting on the fact that some percentage of the listeners won't skip the ad, especially if it's the first time they're hearing it. Make the ad-skipping automatic, then it's guaranteed that no one is listening to ads. (no ads == no revenue). This will completely ruin the system as it exists today.
- whitehouse3 7y ago
  > Why isn't that happening? Because most podcasters make no money and don't have the skills to write an app or service to do it for them. Larger companies like NPR and BBC already do it. OP's concern isn't about individual producers. It's about media and tech companies like Spotify and Stitcher gobbling up the market.
- dageshi 7y ago
  Because nobody can prove people are skipping the ads. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, if you make an app that's sole purpose is that and it becomes massively popular then you know a huge chunk of the audience is skipping said ads...
- PascLeRasc 7y ago
  No, what's going to happen is that this will kill independent podcasting and make it unsustainable to run a podcast without agreements with Spotify or Apple or someone.
whitehouse3 7y ago
Agree. And it helps in general that podcast ads are largely inoffensive. I can't watch terrestrial television with its obnoxious commercials anymore. But I don't remember the last time a podcast advertisement annoyed me enough to even skip it.
- the_snooze 7y ago
  Ditto. Podccast ads are pretty much ideal: non-tracking, generally non-intrusive, relevant to the audience, and in some cases quite entertaining (see: Reply All). Podcasters need to be able to keep the lights on, and the ads they run are about as consumer-friendly as they get.
- throwaway287391 7y ago
  > Agree. And it helps in general that podcast ads are largely inoffensive. For me some podcast hosts are so ridiculously funny that I actually intentionally listen to their ad reads. There's been a time or two when I've gone back and re-listened to an ad because I was dying from laughter the whole time. Most of the time it's because the hosts are ripping on the advertiser a bit but it still seems like an amazingly good value for them. The only other time I'll ever do this is for Super Bowl ads, even though those are generally pretty lame. (Other hosts do just dryly read their ads with nothing ad-libbed -- or don't read ads for their own show at all (NPR) -- and I'll usually skip those when it's convenient.)
- antimatter 7y ago
  My problem with podcast ads is how repetitive they are. I'm at a point where I hate squarespace so much because nearly every podcast I listen to is sponsored by them. Same goes for Simplisafe and ZipRecruiter. It's extremely tiring and I would consider this app for automating skipping of ads because of this reason.
nickthegreek 7y ago
So its ethical to manually skip the ads but not to automate the process?
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Sure, because some percentage of the users will still listen to the ad, especially if it's the first time they're hearing it. Make it automated, that guarantees that no one is listening to it. Which would mean no revenue for the content creators. Which would lead to a really crappy system.
  - LeftHandPath 7y ago
    But advertisements in podcasts are commonly pre-recorded by the podcast host(s) - so the host would still be paid for the advertisement, before it goes online. If the advertiser isn’t given any information about playback at ad time, then the revenue would not be affected.
    - rahuldottech 7y ago
      If no users are listening to ads, then no one will purchase ads on the podcasts and the revenue for the creators will dry up.
      - naravara 7y ago
        Or they find alternative revenue streams such as: a.) Patronage/donation model b.) Paywalls c.) Integrated the advertising into the program rather than making it a separate ad read
        robbrown451 7y ago
        Not sure if you are suggesting that is good or bad. I see all those as bad. I don't like being guilted, paywalls just suck (also for the podcasters, they lose all their word of mouth), and blurring the lines between ads and content is awful
spencey 7y ago
Anecdotally, I listen to a podcast where they make money off merch and Patreon only. No need for advertising.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  That only works for podcasts with big, dedicated audiences.
  - antielectronite 7y ago
    same with ads.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  How do you know about the merch or Patreon? Do they not even tell you about it? Because if they do, that's an ad.
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    There's a huge difference between being asked to support the people making something you enjoy and allowing totally unrelated and reactionary monied interests access to my attention. The latter can talk to the hand because I don't wanna hear about it.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      To each their own, but I personally would rather have someone saying "here's some cool power tools / skateboard equipment / digital pianos you might be interested in buying" than "don't you feel terrible for not sending us money for this thing you can get for free?" I don't like being guilted, I really don't. But I understand that some feel differently.
      - tehjoker 7y ago
        It's bad either way, only adequate public funding for arts and media can resolves some of these problems.
bilekas 7y ago
I was going to play devils advocate until your edit of having the paid app (i didn't download it) This is in essence no longer something that's just a cool idea and a nice novelty, it's why streaming companies and creators especially complain about losing revenue.. OP is taking what I would prefer to go to creators.
Akababa 7y ago
You could say the same thing about adblockers in general. It's unfortunately pushed more content creators to put up paywalls and move to subscription-based models. The smart thing to do with apps like this is to keep it to yourself, but inevitably someone will release one for the masses.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Yeah, but ads on the web have lots of issues like tracking and malicious code injection, so blocking them makes total sense. A lot fewer people would be using ad blockers in browsers if web ads were as simple as podcast ads (the equivalent would be unobtrusive static images with links) .
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > (the equivalent would be unobtrusive static images with links) You could also have dynamic images thank to GIFs. Just think of the possibilities that would be enabled by that - "Hit the monkey!", "Shoot the gangster!" - An incredibly effective way to drive engagement.
roywiggins 7y ago
That's Luminary's business model, as far as I can tell.
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Yeah. I'm glad they haven't taken off much. I love how open the podcast system is. I'd absolutely hate for it to be ruined.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    I'm not actually against paid-for podcasts, but hiving it off into a separate app does not appeal.
    - asymmetric 7y ago
      How would you deliver paid-for podcasts otherwise? You could put them behind an RSS feed with a ?passcode maybe? Not sure.
      - criddell 7y ago
        That's basically how most Patreon supported podcasters do it - a private feed.
abstractbarista 7y ago
Meh, I'll keep blocking ads everywhere I go and ignoring them otherwise. If they can't be ignored, I just don't consume the content. Skipping a portion is equal to redacting the part of a landscape image with a billboard in it. Furthermore, the digital medium is inherently copyable and malleable. If you want to distribute content via this medium, you need to accept that. Sure, make it harder if you please.
aloukissas 7y ago
How is this different than, say, Brave blocking in-flow YouTube ads? Minus the fact that this one is a paid app.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  It doesn't have to be different. They can both be a bad idea.
- avocado4 7y ago
  It's not different. Brave's business model of inserting themselves as a middleman and charging a ransom is awfully unethical.
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    You sound like you work for Google.
    - ilikehurdles 7y ago
      They did.
      - avocado4 7y ago
        That's correct.
    - izacus 7y ago
      There's seriously no need for a personal attack.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
notafraudster 7y ago
It's an open system because the numerous and ongoing attempts to make it a closed system have been unsuccessful because users don't like that. Spotify and Stitcher are the most recent attempts to secure tons of exclusive content behind an app gate or a paywall. Even if this app is successful beyond OP's wildest dreams it's going to take 1% of the market or whatever -- the idea that this is going to cause a sudden shift in business strategy, and that that shift will be in favour of proprietary apps in a way that people aren't trying now, beggars belief.
zozbot234 7y ago
I agree that this app is somewhat less than ethical and that folks should refrain from using or supporting it. It's one thing to block 3rd-party ads on the Web, which come with fairly severe privacy implications for the user and ruin their Web browsing experience - but none of this applies to ads which are simply part of an open audio podcast. If the industry shifts to proprietary players in order to enforce ads, this will mean more invasion of privacy, not less, and we will all lose.
- criddell 7y ago
  Some podcast companies are inserting user targeted ads into the file.
  - tehwebguy 7y ago
    At the point of download?
    - kalleboo 7y ago
      Yes. Stuff like this https://podads.podbean.com https://podads.podbean.com
      - criddell 7y ago
        When 37Signals found out their podcast host was doing listener tracking they dumped them and put out a podcast about it: https://podbay.fm/podcast/1264193508/e/1572350400 https://podbay.fm/podcast/1264193508/e/1572350400
- rainonmoon 7y ago
  While those are your parameters for why ads are objectionable, they aren't universal, and concerns about privacy implications AND user experience both apply to ads in podcasts. Personally I don't mind listening to ads in podcasts, but I don't see the doomsday scenario here; plenty of podcasters already paywall episodes on Patreon. As with online publishing, the alternative to ads is the subscriber model.
b3lvedere 7y ago
I really hate ads. I skip or block all of them as much as possible. If i can automate that, i will. It is the main reason i do not use regular magazines, tv and radio.
- adskipprod 7y ago
  You are the perfect user for AdSkipPro :)
olivierbeaulieu 7y ago
unthetical
- adskipprod 7y ago
  Can you elaborate please? Apple's own Podcasts app lets you skip the ads with a button. This app does it automatically.
simias 7y ago
I agree that making money by effectively making it harder for the original content creators to make money is not super ethical in my book and as such I'd refuse to use such an app. That being said: >If we do stuff like this, the podcast industry will switch to a closed system which would require you to install proprietary apps to listen to stuff. Likely several different apps for different shows and companies. You can dismiss all adblockers that way. Except it's not really how it'll work: if people really make it inconvenient to access the content people will pirate instead. Podcasts are also generally small audio files which makes them super easy to share. Instead I think that blocking ads (which, IMO, are a cancer for our society and I have no moral or ethical problem blocking everywhere) will incentivize podcasters to find alternative schemes to make money. For instance you could have a "Spotify for podcasts" that lets you watch podcasts ad-free with a subscription. There actually already are a few services for that (Stitcher comes to mind). I actually pay for a Stitcher subscription to listen to my podcasts ad-free. I want to believe in a future version of the internet where everybody and their dog aren't spending their entire resources conning me into watching ads I don't want to see.
shantly 7y ago
> Edit: also, it's super unethical to have a paid app that profits by taking away any scope for content creators to monetize. Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Absurd. Software's whole deal is wrecking people's jobs to save someone else money or make their lives easier. This time it's ad-supported mp3 makers instead of any of the tons and tons of other people who've been tossed around by software. Often this does suck but to single out helping people avoid ads as the one thing you must not charge for is silly.
mortenjorck 7y ago
Ok. It seems to be nearly unanimous here that as clever as this app is, it’s on a fast track to a tragedy-of-the-commons situation in podcasting. Allow me to propose a pivot. Most listeners know in the first few seconds whether an ad falls into the “hey, that actually sounds interesting” category or the “no, I still don’t need a Squarespace/Casper/Mailchimp” category. Take a page from YouTube and play the first 3-5 seconds of the ad, and then give the user a big skip button that skips the entire ad segment. Your app will still have the USP of a better experience than jumping back and forward in 15-30 second increments, and it preserves the ad-supported model with a proven UX pattern validated by one of the biggest advertising platforms in the world. You could even form partnerships with podcast networks who want insight into what ads get skipped and which get played for longer. This HN post brought to you by mortenjorck product consulting.
- teddyh 7y ago
  > play the first 3-5 seconds of the ad, and then give the user a big skip button There is another medium which has a similar interaction model, and most people seem to really dislike those, i.e. in-game cut scenes with surprise quicktime events.
danShumway 7y ago
I believe users have the full right to filter content they listen to both manually (by skipping forward) and via automated means (by having a robot skip forward)[0]. The benefit of podcasts being an open system -- of them being raw MP3 files, is that users can manipulate and control the content they're being served. An open, ethical system that can only exist because users don't exercise their rights is of little value. There are already segments of the industry that want to turn podcasting into a closed system (see Spotify), because as good as the current model is, it's still more profitable to turn podcasting into a top-down controlled system with gatekeepers. If business interests are currently what is keeping the ecosystem open, then I think we're doomed, because Netflix is always going to be the more profitable business model. [0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter
- CharlesW 7y ago
  > I believe users have the full right to filter content they listen to both manually (by skipping forward) and via automated means (by having a robot skip forward). Cool, let's automate away creators' ability to make money by giving away free content. Sure, podcasting will die and be replaced by closed, DRM-encumbered audio platforms, but then I'll just steal that same content. And really, isn't killing an open medium better than manually skipping ads a couple times an hour?
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > by giving away free content Ads aren't free. Yes, it sort of stinks that we might have to come up with another way to fund podcasts. But we should come up with an alternate funding model anyway -- ads aren't ethical, and they're not free. The only reason anyone pays a podcaster to display ads is because statistically speaking, that recommendation is going to manipulate someone into buying that product regardless of its quality or relevance to that person's life. If you listen to advertising but don't buy the advertised products, you're not supporting creators. Other people who buy those products are supporting creators, and they are subsidizing you. Your money is valuable, not your attention. Your purchasing decisions are valuable, not your ears. So the idea that advertising is a completely neutral act that somehow magically gives us tons of content for free, without any knock-on effects towards society or business costs or acceptable content is one of the most widely-shared, pervasive misconceptions on the modern Internet. Ads are not magically making money appear from nowhere, ordinary people are indirectly paying for those ads by having their consuming habits altered against their will and without their permission. It's better for us to just acknowledge that podcasting has a cost, and to just deal with that fact -- not to keep hiding behind the idea that there's a payment scheme out there that will somehow pay someone's salary without affecting anyone else in any way. Just directly support creators: it's healthier for the ecosystem, and it's healthier for you. > And really, isn't killing an open medium better than manually skipping ads a couple times an hour? An open medium that you're scared to manipulate is not an open medium. If we're all scared to attach metadata to an mp3 file, then who cares what format the file is in? Who cares whether or not a file has DRM if you're not willing to touch it? Users have the right to exercise their rights. They also have the right to delegate those rights to other people and software products[0] -- ie, to have a piece of software exercise their filter rights on their behalf. Any world in which people aren't free to filter the content they consume is just another dystopia. [0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate
sircastor 7y ago
We're already headed this direction. Apple is capturing usage statistics, NPR One Captures usage statistics, Spotify is absolutely capturing this information. Advertisers have gotten a taste for blood with all the data they've gotten from the web, and they want it for podcasts. Breakdown the ethics violation you see happening here. The way I read your argument, Podcast apps have an ethical obligation to ensure users can't easily should the ads.
- kalleboo 7y ago
  And NPR was also all gung-ho about adding a whole tracking API into podcasts https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2018/12/11/675250553/remote-audio-data-is-here https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2018/12/11/675250553/... But no major podcast apps have implemented it (because why the hell would they?)
JeremyNT 7y ago
While I agree that it's a little sketchy to profit from this, the basic idea seems completely fine to me. Practically, what is different about manually skipping every single ad (which I - and presumably other people who might consider a skipping feature useful - currently do) versus automatically skipping them? It seems to me the only difference is that automatic skipping frees me from a minor annoyance.

windsurfer 7y ago

By your own logic, podcasters would be releasing their own proprietary apps to prevent users from pressing the "skip forward 30 seconds" button when an ad starts playing. Why isn't that happening?

rahuldottech 7y ago
Because right now they're counting on the fact that some percentage of the listeners won't skip the ad, especially if it's the first time they're hearing it. Make the ad-skipping automatic, then it's guaranteed that no one is listening to ads. (no ads == no revenue). This will completely ruin the system as it exists today.
whitehouse3 7y ago
> Why isn't that happening? Because most podcasters make no money and don't have the skills to write an app or service to do it for them. Larger companies like NPR and BBC already do it. OP's concern isn't about individual producers. It's about media and tech companies like Spotify and Stitcher gobbling up the market.
dageshi 7y ago
Because nobody can prove people are skipping the ads. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, if you make an app that's sole purpose is that and it becomes massively popular then you know a huge chunk of the audience is skipping said ads...
PascLeRasc 7y ago
No, what's going to happen is that this will kill independent podcasting and make it unsustainable to run a podcast without agreements with Spotify or Apple or someone.

whitehouse3 7y ago

Agree. And it helps in general that podcast ads are largely inoffensive. I can't watch terrestrial television with its obnoxious commercials anymore. But I don't remember the last time a podcast advertisement annoyed me enough to even skip it.

the_snooze 7y ago
Ditto. Podccast ads are pretty much ideal: non-tracking, generally non-intrusive, relevant to the audience, and in some cases quite entertaining (see: Reply All). Podcasters need to be able to keep the lights on, and the ads they run are about as consumer-friendly as they get.
throwaway287391 7y ago
> Agree. And it helps in general that podcast ads are largely inoffensive. For me some podcast hosts are so ridiculously funny that I actually intentionally listen to their ad reads. There's been a time or two when I've gone back and re-listened to an ad because I was dying from laughter the whole time. Most of the time it's because the hosts are ripping on the advertiser a bit but it still seems like an amazingly good value for them. The only other time I'll ever do this is for Super Bowl ads, even though those are generally pretty lame. (Other hosts do just dryly read their ads with nothing ad-libbed -- or don't read ads for their own show at all (NPR) -- and I'll usually skip those when it's convenient.)
antimatter 7y ago
My problem with podcast ads is how repetitive they are. I'm at a point where I hate squarespace so much because nearly every podcast I listen to is sponsored by them. Same goes for Simplisafe and ZipRecruiter. It's extremely tiring and I would consider this app for automating skipping of ads because of this reason.

nickthegreek 7y ago

So its ethical to manually skip the ads but not to automate the process?

rahuldottech 7y ago
Sure, because some percentage of the users will still listen to the ad, especially if it's the first time they're hearing it. Make it automated, that guarantees that no one is listening to it. Which would mean no revenue for the content creators. Which would lead to a really crappy system.
- LeftHandPath 7y ago
  But advertisements in podcasts are commonly pre-recorded by the podcast host(s) - so the host would still be paid for the advertisement, before it goes online. If the advertiser isn’t given any information about playback at ad time, then the revenue would not be affected.
  - rahuldottech 7y ago
    If no users are listening to ads, then no one will purchase ads on the podcasts and the revenue for the creators will dry up.
    - naravara 7y ago
      Or they find alternative revenue streams such as: a.) Patronage/donation model b.) Paywalls c.) Integrated the advertising into the program rather than making it a separate ad read
      - robbrown451 7y ago
        Not sure if you are suggesting that is good or bad. I see all those as bad. I don't like being guilted, paywalls just suck (also for the podcasters, they lose all their word of mouth), and blurring the lines between ads and content is awful

spencey 7y ago

Anecdotally, I listen to a podcast where they make money off merch and Patreon only. No need for advertising.

rahuldottech 7y ago
That only works for podcasts with big, dedicated audiences.
- antielectronite 7y ago
  same with ads.
robbrown451 7y ago
How do you know about the merch or Patreon? Do they not even tell you about it? Because if they do, that's an ad.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  There's a huge difference between being asked to support the people making something you enjoy and allowing totally unrelated and reactionary monied interests access to my attention. The latter can talk to the hand because I don't wanna hear about it.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    To each their own, but I personally would rather have someone saying "here's some cool power tools / skateboard equipment / digital pianos you might be interested in buying" than "don't you feel terrible for not sending us money for this thing you can get for free?" I don't like being guilted, I really don't. But I understand that some feel differently.
    - tehjoker 7y ago
      It's bad either way, only adequate public funding for arts and media can resolves some of these problems.

bilekas 7y ago

I was going to play devils advocate until your edit of having the paid app (i didn't download it) This is in essence no longer something that's just a cool idea and a nice novelty, it's why streaming companies and creators especially complain about losing revenue.. OP is taking what I would prefer to go to creators.

Akababa 7y ago

You could say the same thing about adblockers in general. It's unfortunately pushed more content creators to put up paywalls and move to subscription-based models. The smart thing to do with apps like this is to keep it to yourself, but inevitably someone will release one for the masses.

rahuldottech 7y ago
Yeah, but ads on the web have lots of issues like tracking and malicious code injection, so blocking them makes total sense. A lot fewer people would be using ad blockers in browsers if web ads were as simple as podcast ads (the equivalent would be unobtrusive static images with links) .
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > (the equivalent would be unobtrusive static images with links) You could also have dynamic images thank to GIFs. Just think of the possibilities that would be enabled by that - "Hit the monkey!", "Shoot the gangster!" - An incredibly effective way to drive engagement.

roywiggins 7y ago

That's Luminary's business model, as far as I can tell.

rahuldottech 7y ago
Yeah. I'm glad they haven't taken off much. I love how open the podcast system is. I'd absolutely hate for it to be ruined.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  I'm not actually against paid-for podcasts, but hiving it off into a separate app does not appeal.
  - asymmetric 7y ago
    How would you deliver paid-for podcasts otherwise? You could put them behind an RSS feed with a ?passcode maybe? Not sure.
    - criddell 7y ago
      That's basically how most Patreon supported podcasters do it - a private feed.

abstractbarista 7y ago

Meh, I'll keep blocking ads everywhere I go and ignoring them otherwise. If they can't be ignored, I just don't consume the content. Skipping a portion is equal to redacting the part of a landscape image with a billboard in it. Furthermore, the digital medium is inherently copyable and malleable. If you want to distribute content via this medium, you need to accept that. Sure, make it harder if you please.

aloukissas 7y ago

How is this different than, say, Brave blocking in-flow YouTube ads? Minus the fact that this one is a paid app.

reaperducer 7y ago
It doesn't have to be different. They can both be a bad idea.
avocado4 7y ago
It's not different. Brave's business model of inserting themselves as a middleman and charging a ransom is awfully unethical.
- jaywalk 7y ago
  You sound like you work for Google.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    They did.
    - avocado4 7y ago
      That's correct.
  - izacus 7y ago
    There's seriously no need for a personal attack.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

notafraudster 7y ago

It's an open system because the numerous and ongoing attempts to make it a closed system have been unsuccessful because users don't like that. Spotify and Stitcher are the most recent attempts to secure tons of exclusive content behind an app gate or a paywall. Even if this app is successful beyond OP's wildest dreams it's going to take 1% of the market or whatever -- the idea that this is going to cause a sudden shift in business strategy, and that that shift will be in favour of proprietary apps in a way that people aren't trying now, beggars belief.

zozbot234 7y ago

I agree that this app is somewhat less than ethical and that folks should refrain from using or supporting it. It's one thing to block 3rd-party ads on the Web, which come with fairly severe privacy implications for the user and ruin their Web browsing experience - but none of this applies to ads which are simply part of an open audio podcast. If the industry shifts to proprietary players in order to enforce ads, this will mean more invasion of privacy, not less, and we will all lose.

criddell 7y ago
Some podcast companies are inserting user targeted ads into the file.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  At the point of download?
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    Yes. Stuff like this https://podads.podbean.com https://podads.podbean.com
    - criddell 7y ago
      When 37Signals found out their podcast host was doing listener tracking they dumped them and put out a podcast about it: https://podbay.fm/podcast/1264193508/e/1572350400 https://podbay.fm/podcast/1264193508/e/1572350400
rainonmoon 7y ago
While those are your parameters for why ads are objectionable, they aren't universal, and concerns about privacy implications AND user experience both apply to ads in podcasts. Personally I don't mind listening to ads in podcasts, but I don't see the doomsday scenario here; plenty of podcasters already paywall episodes on Patreon. As with online publishing, the alternative to ads is the subscriber model.

b3lvedere 7y ago

I really hate ads. I skip or block all of them as much as possible. If i can automate that, i will. It is the main reason i do not use regular magazines, tv and radio.

adskipprod 7y ago
You are the perfect user for AdSkipPro :)

olivierbeaulieu 7y ago

unthetical

adskipprod 7y ago
Can you elaborate please? Apple's own Podcasts app lets you skip the ads with a button. This app does it automatically.

simias 7y ago

I agree that making money by effectively making it harder for the original content creators to make money is not super ethical in my book and as such I'd refuse to use such an app. That being said: >If we do stuff like this, the podcast industry will switch to a closed system which would require you to install proprietary apps to listen to stuff. Likely several different apps for different shows and companies. You can dismiss all adblockers that way. Except it's not really how it'll work: if people really make it inconvenient to access the content people will pirate instead. Podcasts are also generally small audio files which makes them super easy to share. Instead I think that blocking ads (which, IMO, are a cancer for our society and I have no moral or ethical problem blocking everywhere) will incentivize podcasters to find alternative schemes to make money. For instance you could have a "Spotify for podcasts" that lets you watch podcasts ad-free with a subscription. There actually already are a few services for that (Stitcher comes to mind). I actually pay for a Stitcher subscription to listen to my podcasts ad-free. I want to believe in a future version of the internet where everybody and their dog aren't spending their entire resources conning me into watching ads I don't want to see.

shantly 7y ago

> Edit: also, it's super unethical to have a paid app that profits by taking away any scope for content creators to monetize. Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Absurd. Software's whole deal is wrecking people's jobs to save someone else money or make their lives easier. This time it's ad-supported mp3 makers instead of any of the tons and tons of other people who've been tossed around by software. Often this does suck but to single out helping people avoid ads as the one thing you must not charge for is silly.

mortenjorck 7y ago

Ok. It seems to be nearly unanimous here that as clever as this app is, it’s on a fast track to a tragedy-of-the-commons situation in podcasting. Allow me to propose a pivot. Most listeners know in the first few seconds whether an ad falls into the “hey, that actually sounds interesting” category or the “no, I still don’t need a Squarespace/Casper/Mailchimp” category. Take a page from YouTube and play the first 3-5 seconds of the ad, and then give the user a big skip button that skips the entire ad segment. Your app will still have the USP of a better experience than jumping back and forward in 15-30 second increments, and it preserves the ad-supported model with a proven UX pattern validated by one of the biggest advertising platforms in the world. You could even form partnerships with podcast networks who want insight into what ads get skipped and which get played for longer. This HN post brought to you by mortenjorck product consulting.

teddyh 7y ago
> play the first 3-5 seconds of the ad, and then give the user a big skip button There is another medium which has a similar interaction model, and most people seem to really dislike those, i.e. in-game cut scenes with surprise quicktime events.

danShumway 7y ago

I believe users have the full right to filter content they listen to both manually (by skipping forward) and via automated means (by having a robot skip forward)[0]. The benefit of podcasts being an open system -- of them being raw MP3 files, is that users can manipulate and control the content they're being served. An open, ethical system that can only exist because users don't exercise their rights is of little value. There are already segments of the industry that want to turn podcasting into a closed system (see Spotify), because as good as the current model is, it's still more profitable to turn podcasting into a top-down controlled system with gatekeepers. If business interests are currently what is keeping the ecosystem open, then I think we're doomed, because Netflix is always going to be the more profitable business model. [0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter

CharlesW 7y ago
> I believe users have the full right to filter content they listen to both manually (by skipping forward) and via automated means (by having a robot skip forward). Cool, let's automate away creators' ability to make money by giving away free content. Sure, podcasting will die and be replaced by closed, DRM-encumbered audio platforms, but then I'll just steal that same content. And really, isn't killing an open medium better than manually skipping ads a couple times an hour?
- danShumway 7y ago
  > by giving away free content Ads aren't free. Yes, it sort of stinks that we might have to come up with another way to fund podcasts. But we should come up with an alternate funding model anyway -- ads aren't ethical, and they're not free. The only reason anyone pays a podcaster to display ads is because statistically speaking, that recommendation is going to manipulate someone into buying that product regardless of its quality or relevance to that person's life. If you listen to advertising but don't buy the advertised products, you're not supporting creators. Other people who buy those products are supporting creators, and they are subsidizing you. Your money is valuable, not your attention. Your purchasing decisions are valuable, not your ears. So the idea that advertising is a completely neutral act that somehow magically gives us tons of content for free, without any knock-on effects towards society or business costs or acceptable content is one of the most widely-shared, pervasive misconceptions on the modern Internet. Ads are not magically making money appear from nowhere, ordinary people are indirectly paying for those ads by having their consuming habits altered against their will and without their permission. It's better for us to just acknowledge that podcasting has a cost, and to just deal with that fact -- not to keep hiding behind the idea that there's a payment scheme out there that will somehow pay someone's salary without affecting anyone else in any way. Just directly support creators: it's healthier for the ecosystem, and it's healthier for you. > And really, isn't killing an open medium better than manually skipping ads a couple times an hour? An open medium that you're scared to manipulate is not an open medium. If we're all scared to attach metadata to an mp3 file, then who cares what format the file is in? Who cares whether or not a file has DRM if you're not willing to touch it? Users have the right to exercise their rights. They also have the right to delegate those rights to other people and software products[0] -- ie, to have a piece of software exercise their filter rights on their behalf. Any world in which people aren't free to filter the content they consume is just another dystopia. [0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate

sircastor 7y ago

We're already headed this direction. Apple is capturing usage statistics, NPR One Captures usage statistics, Spotify is absolutely capturing this information. Advertisers have gotten a taste for blood with all the data they've gotten from the web, and they want it for podcasts. Breakdown the ethics violation you see happening here. The way I read your argument, Podcast apps have an ethical obligation to ensure users can't easily should the ads.

kalleboo 7y ago
And NPR was also all gung-ho about adding a whole tracking API into podcasts https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2018/12/11/675250553/remote-audio-data-is-here https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2018/12/11/675250553/... But no major podcast apps have implemented it (because why the hell would they?)

JeremyNT 7y ago

While I agree that it's a little sketchy to profit from this, the basic idea seems completely fine to me. Practically, what is different about manually skipping every single ad (which I - and presumably other people who might consider a skipping feature useful - currently do) versus automatically skipping them? It seems to me the only difference is that automatic skipping frees me from a minor annoyance.