Apple Meets With Podcasters to Hear Wide-Ranging Community Grievances

[Michael Scrip]

I'd like to contribute money to podcasts I listen to if I could. I spend 50 bucks a month on cable and watch like 3% percent of the shows. I do contribute towards podcasts patreons if the option is there, but the process is annoying. It should just be baked into the podcast app. I listen to hundreds of hours a podcast a month, its embarrassing how little I contribute towards the effort of creating a podcast.

If the podcasts you're listening to have advertising in them... you're already contributing.

Ears listening to podcasts are like eyes on a billboard.

Be aware that if Apple's Podcast app had a donation feature... Apple might take a cut.

If so... it might be better to stick to Patreon or other direct donation services.

Or just listen to the ads and buy things using their special URL or product code.

 

[CaTOAGU]

I've never liked the sharing via the Podcast app. My girlfriend would text me a link to an episode via the share sheet, and the link would drop me into the podcast in iTunes...but with no indication of the specific episode.

I've been much happier with Overcast.

My favorite podcast network has the occasional Kickstarter campaign, and I'm happy to be a monthly contributor. But I wouldn't feel that way about all the podcasts I currently listen to. Would depend on the price I guess.

Ah, ok, that is annoying then, sounds like it should be an easy fix though? I don't really have any problems with the official app, other than position sync sometimes being a little slow.

I don't think there are any podcasts I'd be willing to pay a subscription to, I guess that depends on price though, perhaps a micropayment would be OK, I'm happy with the sponsor/ad supported model.

 

[Zedcars]

"...regarding Apple's handing of the popular audio format in recent years."

It should say handling.

 

[Swampthing]

I spend 50 bucks a month on cable and watch like 3% percent of the shows.

Slightly off-topic: Stop wasting 97% of the money you spend on your cable bill every month. I've never seen a package for $50 a month that gives you a wide range of channels that you truly need. Even so, that's $600 a year wasted money.

I cut the cord in October 2013 and never looked back. Between blu-ray discs, Netflix, hulu, iTunes, HBO Now, Amazon prime, podcasts, and free OTA cable, I am not missing anything that I really want to see. And I am paying much less than the standard $85/month package here.

And the biggest benefit, I don't see 90% of commercial advertising anymore.

If you really watch cable that little, you should seriously consider this option.

 

[jonnysods]

At least they are willing to open up a dialogue.

 

[Zirel]

My solution for Podcasts has been to disable it under Restrictions settings, and voila it's no more!

Apple isn't trying to solve your problem. You solve that if you switch to Overcast (which is the best Podcast player), they are trying to solve the problem for their platform!

 

[Tech198]

I guess "not that special place" enough to care neither. Good luck

 

[satchmo]

Wait, so podcasters top grievance is a lack of customer data that they can use to monetize, or charge subscriptions?
I love podcasts but it would be a huge turnoff if the medium turned into yet another monthly fee.

I listen to quite a few podcasts and love the no cost aspect.

But production costs are real and talent should be paid. There's a difference between those produced in someone's basement and those professionally in a studio by the likes of NPR or Gimlet.

I wouldn't mind if there was a new model that helped podcasters make a buck. Not sure what amount that is. Is it similar to apps? i.e.99 cents per download...I'm thinking less.

 

[dave2010]

Apple isn't trying to solve your problem. You solve that if you switch to Overcast (which is the best Podcast player), they are trying to solve the problem for their platform!

I've tried Overcast and don't see the point, it does a couple of more things that I don't need but it misses out on having the search and ratings feature of the iOS app and Carplay doesn't work.
Depends on the user I suppose, but I also think Overcast's design is ugly.

 

[Zirel]

Well, for fellow ATP listeners, now we know why John Siracusa took a vacation to Apple Headquarters!

We are getting ZFS on the next macOS!
[doublepost=1462661649][/doublepost]

I've tried Overcast and don't see the point, it does a couple of more things that I don't need but it misses out on having the search and ratings feature of the iOS app and Carplay doesn't work.
Depends on the user I suppose, but I also think Overcast's design is ugly.

CarPlay works, so does Watch App

Beauty is reletive, I think it's neat and good.

Things that Overcast does:

• If a PodCast has a time table, you can just to those parts
• It has cloudsync for everything, not only your casts are syncrhonized, but if you pause on your iPhone, you can continue on your Browser
• It can fasten the podcast only on the silence parts
• It has voice EQ for when listening through the phone's loudspeakers
• You can set a timer, so it plays for 30 minutes e.g. and then it stops (e.g. for listening before going to sleep)

So far, I think it does everything that has to be done with podcasts...

 

[Tech198]

I listen to quite a few podcasts and love the no cost aspect.

But production costs are real and talent should be paid. There's a difference between those produced in someone's basement and those professionally in a studio by the likes of NPR or Gimlet.

I wouldn't mind if there was a new model that helped podcasters make a buck. Not sure what amount that is. Is it similar to apps? i.e.99 cents per download...I'm thinking less.

They do get paid if they have advertising (look at TWIT.tv)

Its not Apple's fault.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I listen to quite a few podcasts and love the no cost aspect.

But production costs are real and talent should be paid. There's a difference between those produced in someone's basement and those professionally in a studio by the likes of NPR or Gimlet.

I wouldn't mind if there was a new model that helped podcasters make a buck. Not sure what amount that is. Is it similar to apps? i.e.99 cents per download...I'm thinking less.

Most podcasters ARE making bucks. Lots of bucks. They sell advertising.

Some of the big podcasts and podcast networks make $5 million a year in revenue from advertising. (Adam Carolla, NPR, the aforementioned TWiT)

I doubt they'd get anywhere close to that by charging 50 cents an episode or whatever.

 

[Zirel]

Seems lately that all the complaints are around stuff Eddy Cue is responsible for. Maybe he's the one that really needs to take an early retirement.

Eddy Cue is also responsible for the only division of Apple that's growing YoY.

Now what?

Just offload the software he does from him... I think firing Scott Forstall was a great mistake.

 

[Phoenixx]

At least they are willing to open up a dialogue.

Yes, with seven people. Seems to me it's more a token effort than showing any real desire to find out what podcasters actually want.
[doublepost=1462662323][/doublepost]

I listen to quite a few podcasts and love the no cost aspect.

But production costs are real and talent should be paid. There's a difference between those produced in someone's basement and those professionally in a studio by the likes of NPR or Gimlet.

I wouldn't mind if there was a new model that helped podcasters make a buck. Not sure what amount that is. Is it similar to apps? i.e.99 cents per download...I'm thinking less.

You seriously think that podcasters produce their content and don't make money from it in some way? Of course they do. Podcasts almost always have advertising at the start of them for the company producing them or a sponsor.

 

[SteveW928]

Where did podcasting get it's name?

Literally, here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/feb/12/broadcasting.digitalmedia

I bolded a part of your comment because I think you answered the question. Apple doesn't provide detailed info like LibSyn/Blubrry (as far as I know, and trusting your comment).

Apple has access to the default Podcast app, phones, laptops, iCloud accounts, credit cards, location data, and so on. I doubt Podcasters are demanding that data to such an extent, but why wouldn't they ask for *more* data, or at least standard data types.

I'm sure Podcasters would like to know listening habits (iPhone vs iPad, listening times, time played) and demographic data (age, gender, race, location, etc). I don't know what LibSyn/Blubrry has on all that but I'm sure Apple could

1. increase access to data
2. build better tools to access and analyze that data

Yes, Apple could (probably not legally without changing ToS) give specific user info on who subscribes - through iTunes! - to a podcast. Even so, I'm not sure such info would be all that useful.

As to listening habits, Apple doesn't really have that data. LibSyn/Blubrry have better data about that because they actually deliver the audio files. All Apple knows is if someone is subscribed or not. And, even if they did (i.e., the App talked back to Apple... aside from the uproar that would cause), it wouldn't be that much better than what LibSyn/Blubrry provide unless Apple actually attached names to the data.

Example of Libsyn/Blubrry stats:
http://support.libsyn.com/faqs/advanced-stats-walkthrough/
http://create.blubrry.com/resources/podcast-media-download-statistics/

The only thing I can think of that Apple might provide in an aggregated way (if the player app sent data back), directly related, might be gender of the account holder. But, that wouldn't be very accurate, because who knows the gender of the person listening to the podcast compared to who in a family might have the credit-card on file.

In other words, they already have quite good data. ****WAY**** better data than any terrestrial broadcast or traditional media has ever had for ad purchasing reasons.

What podcasters would probably like would be a bit better insight into Apple's search and a much improved search so better quality SEO could be done. Apple's search is kind of like the early days of the Internet level search engine.

I've never liked the sharing via the Podcast app. My girlfriend would text me a link to an episode via the share sheet, and the link would drop me into the podcast in iTunes...but with no indication of the specific episode.

Yea, it would be better just to link someone back to your website page for the episode currently, I suppose. I'm sure Apple could provide a better way to link to an episode more directly. The problem is that some people have websites with a page dedicated to an episode (a good place to link to), while others only have audio episodes in a feed (in other words, if you linked to it, it would play... which many people find annoying, but I suppose some would like).

The reason it links you to the podcast in iTunes its so you can subscribe.

Gotcha.

I was just wondering what sort of data podcasters are looking to get from Apple... and using myself as an example of someone who isn't using an Apple solution to listen to podcasts.

The actual podcasts are served from somewhere else (Libsyn, Podtrac, etc) so they aren't tied to Apple at all, right? If I understand correctly... podcasts are basically RSS feeds and an MP3 file served from somewhere.

So if a podcaster wanted to know how many downloads they are getting... they'd check with their podcast provider... not necessarily Apple.

Apple must know what you're listening to... but the file itself is coming from some other service. So those numbers would be equally as valuable.

(unless I'm completely wrong... no file actually comes from Apple servers, right?)

You've pretty much got it. Apple wouldn't know how many downloads, etc. They don't even know that for people subscribed through iTunes unless the app talks back (which it *might* do for syncing across devices).

I'm not sure what stats they are looking for. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense (which leads me to believe possibly these folks don't know what they are doing, for example, the NPR folks generally don't seem to based on stuff they've tried recently... and they have the top several podcasts, I think.).

 

[radio893fm]

Good example of Apple acting on input from concerned customers.

Oh you mean like how much they listen every time we beg for them to finally change/fix iTunes, add a port to certain computer, create a 2 button mouse, etc? Oh ok... there's hope.

 

[Zirel]

Oh you mean like how much they listen every time we beg for them to finally change/fix iTunes, add a port to certain computer, create a 2 button mouse, etc? Oh ok... there's hope.

Yep... No 2 button mice from Apple ! /s

 

[Mr. Dee]

When Steve Jobs was in charge, you hardly heard about Eddy Cue. I think he is spending too much time in the spotlight than actually managing Apple's content platform. From making iTunes turn into what is now, China blocking online stores, the current podcast issue, Apple TVs lack lustre debut. Cue needs some focus.

 

[SteveW928]

Most podcasters ARE making bucks. Lots of bucks. They sell advertising.

Actually, no. A lot of podcasters don't even make enough to cover costs. Some podcasters make enough to move it from hobby to a small supplemental income. A few podcasters make a living. And a VERY FEW podcasters make a good living. And, then there are a top dozen or so that make serious money like you're talking about. And usually these people are already famous and brought a huge audience to the platform.

I think firing Scott Forstall was a great mistake.

Me too, along with letting Ive influence software design.

You seriously think that podcasters produce their content and don't make money from it in some way? Of course they do. Podcasts almost always have advertising at the start of them for the company producing them or a sponsor.

Actually, a lot of them don't. Many *business* oriented ones, or ones with a strong enough audience often do try to find sponsors. But, very few of them are making even enough to make a living from that alone, if even pay for expenses.

Many (non-hobby) podcasters also do it for the exposure, not any kind of direct income. So, maybe indirectly, the podcast is supporting itself by brining customers to someone, etc. Or, building an audience that might buy a product, seminar, etc.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

These aren't complaints I've heard, and I follow the podcasting community pretty closely. I suppose some podcasters might like a bit more data from Apple about subscriptions or ranking, etc. they can get *plenty* of aggregated data about their audience from the big podcast hosts already! (Apple doesn't host the podcasts, they are just a directory, VIA which people can search/subscribe).
...
What's *actually* happening, is that podcasting has grown in popularity to the point that the big boys of media are taking note and wanting to get into the game. They just haven't stopped long enough to actually understand the medium first.

I haven't heard any of these complaints either (though I'm not an authority on podcasts). But it leads me to think that maybe Apple is looking to turn podcasts into a service to bolster their services segment, to starve off some of the revenue/profit lost by declining hardware sales.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yes, with seven people. Seems to me it's more a token effort than showing any real desire to find out what podcasters actually want.

I'm still confused as to what podcasters actually want.

The article mentions how there's no ability to have paid subscriptions. Well... podcasts are already providing free content to listeners in exchange for advertising. Sometimes millions of dollars in advertising. That seems to be working. What needs to be changed?

I don't think nickle-n-diming every episode is what people really want... and the podcasters would probably lose a ton of money by switching to that model.

Some podcasts even sell their own apps with exclusive content or back-catalog episodes... so they've figured out how to charge money for their content. It seems they have solved this "problem"

The 2nd issue is sharing. I've never felt the need to share a podcast I'm listening to on Facebook or whatever.

Or are they talking about the podcasts themselves? I dunno... because I see plenty of sharing and/or announcements on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

"New episode, download now" is a common thing on social media.

So again... I'm not sure what this whole thing is all about... or what podcasters hope to gain from talking to Apple.

iTunes/Apple is just one of many methods to consume podcasts. I listen to podcasts without involving iTunes/Apple. I use Overcast, for instance.

And to create a podcast... you don't need Apple either. You basically need an RSS feed pointing to some files hosted on a server somewhere.

Of course you want to be listed in Apple's catalog... as I would assume they have the largest catalog. But they aren't the only catalog.

 

[SteveW928]

I haven't heard any of these complaints either (though I'm not an authority on podcasts). But it leads me to think that maybe Apple is looking to turn podcasts into a service to bolster their services segment, to starve off some of the revenue/profit lost by declining hardware sales.

I think that would be tricky. I guess, like Google, they could start selling prioritized or paid search (which corresponds with a few other recent rumors). If true, that's really short-sighted... but that seems to be the 'new' Apple, so I won't say impossible.

But, just remember that in terms of podcasting and iTunes, Apple is just a discovery service. It's a bit akin to Google saying they are going to start charging for people to read blog articles. If they did, most people would just find the blog articles via other means.

 

[autrefois]

Questionable memory. You do know where the name came from? Here's a clue: iPod. Before this it was audio-blogging and globally didn't make a blip. Apple absolutely put pod-casting on the map.

Sorry, but it's your memory that's faulty. People called it podcasting prior to Apple's blessing. People weren't sure whether or not Apple would embrace the name or not, since iPod was obviously trademarked and Apple had no hand in the creation of the name. The fact that iPods made this sort of thing convenient is true, but Apple was not behind the name or the technology of podcasting originally.

Many were pleased when Apple announced they would be joining the growing movement by incorporating it into iTunes and using the word "podcast". This made podcasting, which already was well underway, higher profile and more easily available to more people.

 

[Zirel]

Me too, along with letting Ive influence software design.

Don't know about that, but the attention to detail, and experience isn't as good as it was.

For how it looks, it's subjective.
[doublepost=1462664969][/doublepost]

I don't think nickle-n-diming every episode is what people really want... and the podcasters would probably lose a ton of money by switching to that model.

That's up to the podcasters...

An option between with ads and premium (no ads) would be great.

Some podcasts even sell their own apps with exclusive content or back-catalog episodes... so they've figured out how to charge money for their content. It seems they have solved this "problem"

Imagine if every musician would need an App, or something like that...

No...

sharing. I've never felt the need to share a podcast I'm listening to on Facebook or whatever.

But podcasters, yes, sharing improves discoverability immensely.

And to create a podcast... you don't need Apple either. You basically need an RSS feed pointing to some files hosted on a server somewhere.

Apple doesn't even host. They need to start doing that. They still have the largest service, and they want to keep that!

Of course you want to be listed in Apple's catalog... as I would assume they have the largest catalog. But they aren't the only catalog.

This is not for the podcasters, this is for Apple.

 

[SteveW928]

I'm still confused as to what podcasters actually want.

That's what has me confused too... but this might not be podcasters. I might be the top few people who came from NPR, etc. into podcasting looking to add a few bucks via subscription, etc.

The article mentions how there's no ability to have paid subscriptions. Well... podcasts are already providing free content to listeners in exchange for advertising. Sometimes millions of dollars in advertising. That seems to be working. What needs to be changed?

I don't think nickle-n-diming every episode is what people really want... and the podcasters would probably lose a ton of money by switching to that model.

No podcaster I know would want to switch to that model, and the ones that do, have. It's already quite doable, just not via Apple. (And, would take a substantial change to the way podcasting works for Apple to do so!) All Apple could do is start charging to be listed prominently in the 'store' and I suppose they could charge to subscribe, but then people would just subscribe outside of the iTunes store.

The only way to have a true subscription model, would be to distribute the *media* directly via the iTunes store... but then that would't be podcasting anymore!

Some podcasts even sell their own apps with exclusive content or back-catalog episodes... so they've figured out how to charge money for their content. It seems they have solved this "problem"

Yea, it's a non-problem.

So again... I'm not sure what this whole thing is all about... or what podcasters hope to gain from taling to Apple.

iTunes/Apple is just one of many methods to consume podcasts. I listen to podcasts without involving iTunes/Apple. I use Overcast, for instance.

And to create a podcast... you don't need Apple either. You basically need an RSS feed pointing to some files hosted on a server somewhere.

Of course you want to be listed in Apple's catalog... as I would assume they have the largest catalog. But they aren't the only catalog.

Yep, which is why I'm kind of wondering if these 7 people even know much about podcasting. It sounds like stuff people from traditional media might *think* it could work like, and would probably like to see happen.

That said, yes, iTunes directory is by far the largest place to *FIND* podcasts. So, they have some leverage in that regard, much like Google does for website search. So far, other places are just small percentages compared to iTunes. But, Google Play is now entering the game, so if Apple wanted to capitalize on that, they're a bit late.