4 ms·
This is one of those ideas that is good in theory until you look at how it will actually be used, as well as the actual problems it solves and doesn’t solve. F
by filmgirlcw 6y ago
This is one of those ideas that is good in theory until you look at how it will actually be used, as well as the actual problems it solves and doesn’t solve.
For better or worse, Apple has been the defacto podcast directory for almost every podcasting app for over 15 years. In the aughts, a number of startups tried to take on that space (notably Odeo, which incubated and then pivoted into Twitter) and all of them failed. Apple has been largely an absentee steward, which has worked out well for podcasting. It wasn’t until Google decided to take podcasts seriously about five years ago and launched its own podcast directory. Spotify’s podcast directory started about five years ago too, though took longer to build momentum.
All three are largely copies of one another — although Spotify has exclusives in its directory that can only be played in its app — and most major podcasts choose to submit their RSS feed to those directories, with some also choosing to share with other services (Stitcher, Luminary, etc.) that can do some fucked up stuff with the audio. It’s all a game of reach for a podcast publisher, unless you choose you don’t want Luminary or Stitcher to insert their own ads into your content — or you have an exclusive with some service or another.
So now there is ostensibly yet another podcast directory, except it can’t offer a good value prop for existing except that it is “open” — which sounds good if you’re Alex Jones or you make content that has been kicked out of the other directories — but will realistically impact only a small number of podcasters.
The target audience, I assume is podcatching apps. Right now, most of them scrape the Apple or Google podcasts directory to save the insanity of trying to maintain their own directory.
So what value is there for this “open” directory to someone who has a podcatching app? Well, nothing unless there is a critical mass of podcasts submitted. Moreover, the service says it’s free, but is also asking for donations, which makes me worry about the viability of the index longterm. Given how difficult the market is for creating a third-party podcasting client when Google, Apple, and Spotify exist with their own apps and established indies (Overcast), I would strongly discourage anyone from building their own podcatcher as anything more than a hobby project.
So what’s the point? Podcasters will still have to submit to the major indexes anyway and podcatchers or client apps already have enough problems without having to worry about a little-used alternative that doesn’t have a business plan associated with it.
I’m all for open and I’m not mad this exists — but I certainly wouldn’t build my app off its API.
- StephenSmith 6y agoCurry has had a lot of success running things on donations. I wouldn't discredit this project because of its funding strategy.
- filmgirlcw 6y agoThat’s great that he has a lifestyle business he can support on donations. But I wouldn’t rely on one of his projects for my own project. If I’m going to be beholden to the whims of someone else, I’d rather be beholden to one of the actual directories that has all the content out there.
- ohyeshedid 6y agoI mean, maybe? I only say that because I saw him on Rogan, and there was some odd tap dancing going on, imo. There were a few topics, including the donations and business model, where he seemed to just be oblivious. 3rd parties handling of the donations and his 'I don't know/I'm not involved' kind of aloofness. It came across strange to me; avoidant, I guess.
- mikece 6y agoThe main problem it solves, as mentioned in another comment, is that this project is not beholden to a corporate entity which is in turn beholden to its shareholders. The "censorship of conservative content" has never been about politics but about making advertisers happy: advertisers who demand that their ad buys not be displayed with/alongside content they deem inappropriate for whatever reason. It was the political right who used this tactic to great effect in the 1980s, going after advertisers and boycotting companies advertising on "non-family-friendly" media content (usually television). The media companies want to keep the ad money rolling in so they made a content pivot/censored content. The same thing is happening now; follow the money: that's where the effort to silence is being bought and paid for. Companies like Apple, Google/YouTube, Reddit, and Facebook are simply caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war and trying to find the least crappy path through it.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago