4 ms·
Perhaps, but on the other hand, if someone like Joe Rogan had a paid for subscription plan where you were paying him directly, instead of being forced into a me
by raiyu 5y ago
Perhaps, but on the other hand, if someone like Joe Rogan had a paid for subscription plan where you were paying him directly, instead of being forced into a membership with Spotify, would that in a sense be more open, in that you are able to vote directly with your cash who you are listening to?
Of course, if its an apple product, in a sense you are tied in to their system, but if it's successful, other paid for podcast variants could appear and then Joe Rogan can syndicate it to numerous vendors which have a pay-wall.
- post_break 5y agoI believe paying someone directly for an exclusive podcast makes more sense than paying to be on a platform. The whole idea of a podcast is for it to be accessible on any device using any player of their choice, and spotify does not fit that idea. I'm not saying my mindset is the "correct" one but how I feel. I listen to a lot of podcasts, and there are some premium ones where you pay to get access, but once you pay, the way you access them is basically the same as all other podcasts. Hiding the actual podcast behind a certain protocol is what I raise an eyebrow to. Also, this is my opinion only, spotify is terrible at podcasts from a usability standpoint.
- slg 5y ago>if someone like Joe Rogan had a paid for subscription plan where you were paying him directly, instead of being forced into a membership with Spotify, would that in a sense be more open Yes, because podcasts were previously open on numerous fronts. Any person can create a podcast that can be listened to be any person on any device. That is three points of openness. Adding a price on only restrict one of those points, the "listened to by any person". It still wouldn't stop any person's ability to create them or any device's ability to play them. Spotify (and presumably Apple) restricts both those points of openness too.