Dude,mare you high? Which long term damage, and which short term revenue? Normally people don't cancel subscriptions or stop using ApplePay! It's recurring revenue,mite not a thing that you buy and that's it...
What I'm saying is that if Apple goes for features and wiz-bang, at the cost of good UX principals and productivity/enjoyment, it's going to eventually hurt the platform, and people will go elsewhere. And, if/when that happens, all of these 'services' suddenly won't be worth much anymore. (cf. BlackBerry... are their services all that valuable now that no-one is buying their phones anymore?)
Interesting, in that case I wonder why the Podcasters did not also go for a visit to Google (well, maybe they did) to see how they manage Podcasts and see how to improve the market share there?
Google, until recently, didn't. That's why it's something like a 5:1 ratio of podcast listening on iOS vs Android.
It seems to me that it is easier to increase podcasting market share on Android phones than it is on iOS.
Yes, that's the hope. Podcasters are kind of excited about Google Play adding podcasts to their store/directory. But, this assumes the 'marketshare' difference reflects user-reality (I have my doubts about this based on website stats). IMO, there are far less real-Android users than reported. By that I mean phones actually in use (not in a shoebox), where the users is using it substantially as a smart-phone, making it likely they'd listen to a podcast, visit a website, use xyz app, etc.
But you could have a model where for a small fee the ads are removed.
Not without destroying podcasting as it currently is. To do this, one company would have to own the platform, end to end. Apple and some of these 'big players' could try to push podcasting in that direction, but it would be a hard-sell at this point, and would likely split into two technologies (i.e.: renegade podcasters doing it like now, and the commercial big-boys on a certain platform).
From a producer's perspective, I believe the influence of iTunes is close to completely disappearing. ... As a podcast consumer, there are simply much better ways to listen now - Acast, Pocket Casts, Podbean, Stitcher (and even soundcloud, though I'm not really a fan) are all superior from an episode management point of view.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. All the non-iTunes podcast directories and/or sources account for single-digit percentage listeners. And, typically other platforms (not players) degrade the listening experience because they re-endode the media, or insert ads. Podcast producers might *also* send their podcasts there if they are free, but they depend mostly on iTunes.
And as a podcast producer I have absolutely no time for iTunes and their culture of secrecy. Why won't they share listener figures with content providers? Why is something as straightforward as what constitutes New & Noteworthy kept hidden? Would it kill them to notify me if we have a new review in an obscure market?
Wikishuffle.co.uk featured in New and Noteworthy for about our first 3 months, and I have no doubt that did get us some additional listens, but since then I'd be surprised if iTunes accounts for even 10% of our audience.
Well, if you're not listed in iTunes, you probably hardly exist in the podcasting world. That's just the reality. Unless you mean *listening via iTunes*, like someone sitting at their computer and playing via the iTunes app, then yea. Those are two VERY different things!
As for listener figures, probably because they don't have that info. You get that from your podcast host.
New and/or Noteworthy (it can be either), afaik, are curated and triggered by newness in a category (new), or subscription and download trends (noteworthy). The Top lists are based on subscriptions and downloads.
You can get international podcast reviews at:
https://mypodcastreviews.com
Podcast subscriptions is tied to the Apple ID so it would not matter which payment solution is attached to that Apple ID.
I do think that aggregate information based on Apple IDs would be useful for podcasters:
* Gender
* Age group
* Country / preferred language
* How many podcasts do they subscribe to
* How many devices are they listening on
* How many hours do they listen do podcasts (through Apple apps)
Apple do not collect all that information today, but I can see that podcasters would be interested in such data, even in just aggregate form. Gender and age is pretty important for advertisers.
But, on my Apple ID, we have myself, my wife, and my son. That's a pretty wide variation in gender/age.
Some of the rest, podcasters can get from the host, besides multiple podcast related stuff tied to a particular user (which, might not be accurate anyway... see above).
I'm not against this kind of data being released by Apple, necessarily, but I don't think that's really the issue here (the motives of these 7 podcasters is something else). (cf.
https://marco.org/2016/05/07/apple-role-in-podcasting )
I'm kinda confused here. Apple doesn't charge podcasters for streaming costs. Apple doesn't make a dime off podcasters the way, say, YouTube does off of people who post videos. Apple doesn't require any kind of exclusivity on podcasts...
Note: Apples and oranges (pardon the pun). Directory vs platform. Apple couldn't do that if they wanted to.
So why are they b*ing at all? Certainly good podcasts have market ability to incorporate ads...
There isn't really much b*ing. This is a few, but big, old-media types who want to find a way to control the platform, like they were able to control their old platforms. It's a non-issue, other than that if these few can convince the podcasting platform to move in that direction, it might have some impact if they could get all the big players on the same page.
As I see it Jobs added these as a curiosity and public service. With all the problems Apple needs to solve dedicating staff for this seems a waste. Apple could shutter podcasts all together and maybe a few % would be outraged because that is there thing. The rest would never even notice or find an alternative source.
I think that is why Apple got into it, but disagree with the rest. It would be good for Apple to put more resources into this, because soon (and even now) they won't be the only directory of significance. Google is getting into the game. So far, their attempt is in early stages (and classical Google, pretty lame yet), but eventually, I'm sure they will be a force. AND, I wouldn't put it past Google at all to try and take the platform over and monetize it, to the best of their ability. We need Apple there for the competition, but also to counter what Google may well do.
To everyone disputing wether or not apple created podcasts. Let me give you a hint. POD..... CAST.... POD... IPOD... POD CAST.. Get it yet?
Heh, no it's not quite that simple. People were audio-casting (if we want to call it something else) before Apple got in the game. Then a journalist coined the term 'podcast' because of the popularity of the new iPod. Later, Apple applied that term in iTunes and started supporting the platform, which greatly expanded it's visibility to the average person.
Where the listening data will come from is from the live streams in iTunes Radio, which are going to get expanded, and the new Podcasts section which will be a combination of streaming and downloading.
I don't think that would go over well, and would amount to only a very small percentage of listens via the iTunes app. Also, a lot of people download (not stream) podcasts for many reasons (remote usage, data costs, etc.), so anything that forces streaming would kill the platform. And, w/o streaming or a universal app, such stats are not possible/meaningful.
Personally, I think there's a lot of time being wasted on the idea that podcasts are going to become a huge trend. The second season of Serial tanked (so I read), so the "biggest thing" that's happened in podcasting so far is already out of the picture. People are buying these expensive 4K/5K TVs and you're telling them to go listen to audio dramas, comedies, interviews, whatever on their phones with their $25 EarPods?
Too late, it already is a pretty big thing. And, from what you've said, I don't think you even understand podcasting.
Podcasting isn't about expensive entertainment centers. Set-top-boxes make up less than 1% of podcast listeners. People listen to podcasts because it's one of the few things you can do while getting other things done (i.e.: washing dishes, driving to work, raking the lawn, etc.). You can't do that with YouTube or your expensive entertainment center.
And, people listen to podcasts to learn or be entertained, often in quite niche areas. For example, if I like fly-fishing, there's likely a podcast (or several) about it. And, if you sell fishing line or reels (in terms of advertising), you couldn't possibly find a better audience, even if it's small. (something the media giants are *just* starting to realize... but they are still stuck on old-world metrics thinking)
People always complain that search is bad in Apple's iTunes Store ... There is no algorithm that can calculate how good a song or a podcast is.
When we say bad, we mean bad on a whole other level. It basically searches the title and description, and isn't even very smart about how it does that (i.e. word-order, word variations, no good keyword implementation even... they used to have that but it was so bad it was getting gamed, so they stopped, etc.).
Yes, categorization and curation are critical. But, a good modern search engine is as well.
Is there a reason why adverts and ad-revenue similar to the YouTube model cannot be applied to podcasts?
Yes, because YouTube has control over what's played, how and when, and can track it all. Apple is just a fancy directory listing. All they can tell if that you've subscribed via their directory, unless you're using their app and they send usage data back.
They can't get their tiny minds around the fact Apple's secret weapon wasn't Steve Jobs, that Steve being gone might not mean death of the company.
No, some of us have been around Apple since Steve left the first time, was managed by 'industry experts' and witnessed Steve's return (and the changes he made). And, some of us have been paying attention to things that made Apple great, whether they were Steve's ideas or not. And, some of us are nothing Apple returning to mid-90s business practices and diverging from some of the core things that made them what they are today.
On top of that, not all podcast players support this and most importantly, the one used by 65%, Apple's Podcast client, doesn't, which limits the exposure paid podcast can get.
Yea, trying to go that model is a fail, IMO. If you really want to do that, then just put some extra paid content behind Patreon, a membership site, etc.
All they get is an IP address and download count (and no actual play count) as well download timing. Apple has a real name, gender, physical address, credit card vendor and much more data on customer purchases and behaviour. ... For services like PodTrac and Libsyn to offer more, they need to insert themselves as a middleman ...
Not really. Apple would have to also insert themselves in the middle. As I said above, multiple people often share an Apple ID, so the data is kind of meaningless... AND would only apply to people using Apple's app.
I'm not opposed to getting some data from Apple (if people understand it's limitations), but it has little to do with the point of those 7 podcasters in this article. There's *PLENTY* good enough data already to market and monetize a podcast.
Podcasts could be competing with YOUTube but Apple neglected it for so long that it's almost too late.
EDIT:
apparently someone else said the same thing earlier than me. Welp!!! I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see the potential of the podcast.
Podcasts have huge potential... actually more than YouTube, IMO. They are very different animals with different positives, negatives, and applications. (i.e.: I can't show someone how to install a bathtub on a podcast. But, I can't learn about some topic from a YouTube video while I'm driving to the office.)
But, more importantly for the sake of this article, Google owns YouTube. They have the content, and have complete control over it. Apple just points at podcast sources, and has no control over them. It's kind of like saying Google could control my website just because I show up in their search results. They can have impact on my visibility, but they have nothing to do with my website. That's similar to Apple and podcasts.
