It seems to me that the Podcaster should decide how they want to be paid, not you all complaining about something you get for free. They cast for a living, not a charity.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Plans to Start Funding Original Podcasts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is Spotify funding original content? I haven’t really been following the podcast space. Like some others, I never really got into podcasts.
That looks more like a distribution deal but maybe there’s not a lot of difference between that and funding original content; in both cases the content creators get paid.
But who owns that content? Will Apple own the original content they’re developing? Will Spotify own the Obama’s? Is “buying the rights” the same as “funding original content”? Not sure how this works, hopefully someone will let me know!
Last edited:
I was thinking about those too. They usually have clear music or audio leading the hosts out and then when the hosts come back in. Shouldn't be that hard for a computer to recognize with some accuracy.
I’d like a combined podcast and music based radio. Had an app like that years ago, was great and now missed
i think this is very important. and i welcome it.
its clear that better-level, what i would call important, podcasts do need funding in order to maintain a level of consistency and content. for a lot of these podcasts, their content and viewpoint are difficult to sustain due to small number of overall listeners.
importance of content and number of subscribers do not co-relate.
many media related companies' podcasts (Slate, etc) have decided its necessary, and time, to introduce paid level of content. but at the same time I'm not worried about Slate or that kind of content creator, they are and always have been for-profit corporations.
i am concerned about smaller subscribership level independent and important content creators.
at the same time, apple is desperate to morph itself into a content creation and net based delivery company.
an apple supported (call it a takeover of independent content if you want) podcast, available only on its private servers, is conscientious capitalism supporting content.
think PBS's "This programming is suppprted by the somebody Foundation".
we are living in a dangerous age: quality, independent reporting is dying due to lack of public funding. how to get good, fair, important content to all corners and into the USA (and world's) less accessible locations). its what the net is good at.
we have reached a level in the USA where we need to worry that private content creators such as NPR (it is a private org, even though it does receive government support) survive.
its clear that better-level, what i would call important, podcasts do need funding in order to maintain a level of consistency and content. for a lot of these podcasts, their content and viewpoint are difficult to sustain due to small number of overall listeners.
importance of content and number of subscribers do not co-relate.
many media related companies' podcasts (Slate, etc) have decided its necessary, and time, to introduce paid level of content. but at the same time I'm not worried about Slate or that kind of content creator, they are and always have been for-profit corporations.
i am concerned about smaller subscribership level independent and important content creators.
at the same time, apple is desperate to morph itself into a content creation and net based delivery company.
an apple supported (call it a takeover of independent content if you want) podcast, available only on its private servers, is conscientious capitalism supporting content.
think PBS's "This programming is suppprted by the somebody Foundation".
we are living in a dangerous age: quality, independent reporting is dying due to lack of public funding. how to get good, fair, important content to all corners and into the USA (and world's) less accessible locations). its what the net is good at.
we have reached a level in the USA where we need to worry that private content creators such as NPR (it is a private org, even though it does receive government support) survive.
Last edited:
Indeed - Adam Curry and Dave Winer...
As for Apple produced podcasts - I have no interest in more overproduced NPR/ Gimlet, style scripted fluff. "Science" podcasts given by wikipedia readers that didn't even pass highschool physics or political commentary by video game nerds that never read a foreign newspaper. Replete with a distracting underbed of tingly music...
As for supporting podcasts, I donate directly to the shows that I enjoy listening to. Adam Curry did a reasonable exposé recently on why the big podcast network's are unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.
Way to maintain Steve's laser focus on only making things that are absolutely the best in the world, each able to easily revolutionize it's marketplace. And ruthlessly cutting out any product or feature that might even be 9/10.
Now they make watchbands, online TV shows, Bluetooth speakers, doctor dre headsets, thousand dollar monitor arms, literally anything they think will sell for awhile at decent margins.
Even Samsung isn't this sloppy and unfocused.
#FIRETHEACCOUNTANT
Now they make watchbands, online TV shows, Bluetooth speakers, doctor dre headsets, thousand dollar monitor arms, literally anything they think will sell for awhile at decent margins.
Even Samsung isn't this sloppy and unfocused.
#FIRETHEACCOUNTANT
Yep, and I have taken my first step into leaving. Fortunately I am not trapped by the ecosystem in a big way and can afford to abandon what I have. Lesson learnt, don't allow yourself to be trapped.
I now have a RaspberryPi to start my journey to Linux
I see podcasters jumping all over this, how much money will you be making talking into a microphone?
If Apple is willing to pay you a $1000 for each episode/week, thats $4000 monthly for talking into a microphone and pretty sure its more than they make from ads. Secure the top 40 podcasts, its $160K monthly for Apple, a drop in the bucket.
You guess, does the podcaster want to be a freedom fighter and continue giving his podcasts for free or lock himself to the millions of Apple Music subscribers for a hefty sum?
If Apple is willing to pay you a $1000 for each episode/week, thats $4000 monthly for talking into a microphone and pretty sure its more than they make from ads. Secure the top 40 podcasts, its $160K monthly for Apple, a drop in the bucket.
You guess, does the podcaster want to be a freedom fighter and continue giving his podcasts for free or lock himself to the millions of Apple Music subscribers for a hefty sum?
Examples?
[doublepost=1563376274][/doublepost]
I'm pretty sure the last thing that anyone wants is to have to pay to listen to a podcast and then be subject to ads as well.
Apple certainly gave podcasting a huge boost, and has done lots for it over the years... but, mostly by just being a reasonably player app and directory, along with hardware that supports enjoying podcasts... AND keeping hands off aside from that.
Exactly. There are none to few knowledgable podcasters wanting this. In fact, we don't want it. It's all the old-media types trying to push this baloney on the podcast community in hopes of selling ads or making a buck off the rapidly growing medium.
I suppose, though the analytics tools have to be baked into players. Otherwise, we already have better analytics than just about any previous form of media. They just keep wanting more and more, but they come at the cost of privacy to the listener, or are relegated to a single player app (though in the case of Apple's Podcast app, it can be a sizable percentage).
re: dynamic ad insertion - several podcast hosting services have had that for years. Most podcasters just don't need/want it, as traditional advertising doesn't really work on the medium.
Monetization is simple. Making great/valuable content consistently is the hard part.
There are many other options. If you're already popular, with a huge audience, then I suppose selling to a platform like this makes a bit of sense, at least in terms of ease. But, if you're a typical podcaster, there are MANY other models that would work much better.
This is a solution looking for a problem (that doesn't exist). But, some of the suits sure seem to think it does.
I believe they will add it as "exclusive value" to their Apple Music subscribers
Hopefully it’s better than their stock podcast app. So many better options for listening. I like pocket casts.
Umm..Yes..You wouldn't have a podcast without the iPod.
Ben Hammersley originally suggested the word "podcast" as a portmanteau of "iPod"
Sort of... the name was certainly popularized by a couple of people, and Adam Curry might not have pushed the concept as much if he hadn't been inspired by the iPod. Apple played a huge role in expanding the growth of podcasting over the years.
But, much of that has been due to Apple's rather 'hands off' approach. Apple could have easily killed the success of podcasting if they had approached it like some of these companies are trying to do today. Thankfully, I think it's too big for Apple to even screw up now, even with stuff like exclusive content or mucking up the directory.
I posted this on another forum, but here are a couple of Adam Curry's tellings of the foundations/history of podcasting:
https://overcast.fm/+BVnFCjKc/1:51:38
https://overcast.fm/+BVmGPWRU/1:53:55