Do We Need To Lose The Open Podcast Ecosystem To Make Podcasting Better?

from the i-sure-hope-not... dept

Podcasting has been a rare recent example of a new offering built on open protocols and standards (mainly RSS and MP3), that wasn’t entirely co-opted by one giant corporate entity (even if some have tried). However, there have been some worrying signs of where the podcasting market is moving. For a few years now, we’ve been warning that the world would lose a lot if podcasts move from open standards and protocols to more proprietary solutions — and yet Spotify, for one, has been moving heavily in that direction over the past few years.

And, as Chris Messina pointed out recently, it appears that both Spotify and Apple are looking to move past RSS in how they push podcasts — though he’s unsure if it means that podcasts are dying — or about to go through a renaissance.

It starts with Anchor.fm, the “easy” podcast creation service that Spotify bought a few years ago. The company’s co-founder, Michael Mignanon, wrote a blog post recently in which he talks up how important RSS and openness are… before talking about the limitations of RSS for podcasting, and explaining why it’s time to go beyond that:

Since RSS only enables a flat audio file to be distributed to consumption platforms, creators gain limited and often inaccurate insight into how the audio is consumed, such as where it is being consumed, how much of the audio is being heard or enjoyed (or not), and whether or not the audio is even being heard at all (and not just automatically ?downloaded?). This has broad, widespread implications on the creative process, not only on the ability for creators to improve their work, but also on how creators might be able to monetize their work.

The diversity of opportunities for monetization is also limited. The standard of RSS and the lack of insights about performance make it difficult for creators to find realistic paths to securing advertisers for their podcasts. Given that potential advertisers have difficulty understanding whether a podcast is successful (because of the limited insights referenced above) or suitable for their sponsorship (in terms of reach, brand safety, and alignment of values), this means creators suffer through a lack of potential advertising, despite strong demand by advertisers for the medium. Additionally, given the nature of the RSS standard?s focus on distribution, it?s difficult for creators to monetize using methods beyond advertising, such as through secure podcast subscriptions or direct, fan-supported models that are easy to deploy and use.

These “limits” to podcasts distributed via RSS are… fair criticisms. But they also seem like things that could be fixed by continuing to support modifications to RSS itself, rather than moving over to a proprietary solution. However, Mignano’s bigger complaint about RSS is basically… that it’s too open, and the limit in being able to lock people out of podcasts (i.e., to create limited paywalled podcasts that only flow through specific services) is a problem:

But maybe the biggest limitation of RSS is actually a product of the openness that has enabled the medium to grow in the first place. While creators increase the opportunity for their podcasts to be consumed on a variety of platforms by publishing a podcast to an open RSS feed, in doing so, creators also give up control over which platforms might distribute their content. This includes platforms whose incentives, goals, business models, and ethics may be at odds with the creators?. Additionally, creators sacrifice any choice or input over how the content is displayed, consumed, organized, and monetized (including whether or not the creator gets to participate in the monetization of the content at all).

Put another way, publishing via RSS does not enable much choice for the creator. Instead, it?s a simple on/off switch to indicate whether or not a podcast can be ingested by any platform, including those which creators might not choose if they had such an ability.

That’s putting a shiny coat of paint on the importance of openness in podcasting, and pretending that it’s “bad” for creators that anyone can get a podcast through any app or service. But that’s like saying it’s “bad” for website creators that any browser can view their webpages, and it’s a shame that we can’t cut a deal with, say, Google so that web pages are only viewable in Chrome. That’s… against openness. And, yes, it may create more kinds of business models in the form of new data silos and lockups, but it’s very much a backsliding position against openness, and in favor of fragmentation, paywalls, and limits.

Mignano says that Anchor/Spotify will continue to support RSS and giving creators the choice to use it, but also pushing beyond RSS:

In the coming months and years, we?ll be working to further enable choice for creators, including giving them the power to choose not only how someone wants to create or monetize audio, but also where specific content is able to be consumed, ensuring creators have an opportunity to decide if they are aligned with the platforms distributing their content.

To me, this is not surprising, but a sad statement on closing off the openness of podcasting and the internet, and looking to lock it up in proprietary silos. Again, there should be ways to look to expand and extend RSS to do more of the things that Mignano talks about, including experiments with monetization and better analytics. Going straight proprietary maybe both the easier path, and the obvious one for a giant company… but that doesn’t mean it’s good for the internet or podcasting in general.

Of course, that’s only one story related to this. The other one is Apple moving in a similar direction, adding the ability for podcasts to put up paywalls via Apple’s podcast system (in which Apple will keep a whopping 30% of any subscription revenue). Whether by accident or not, Apple did help popularize podcasts — and did keep it mostly open, even when there had been other opportunities to lock up the ecosystem. It had been a good thing that Apple did not go down that path in the past. However, now it looks like it’s exploring that very thing.

I understand the business and economic logic of these companies doing this, but I worry about what it really means for the future of podcasting and the wonders and benefits of an open internet.

Filed Under: closed, monetization, open, podcasts, rss, silos
Companies: apple, spotify

Does The Spotify Gimlet Purchase Signal The End Of The Open World Of Podcasting?

from the hopefully-not dept

If you follow this kind of news at all, you probably have heard that Spotify has recently purchased two podcasting companies: Gimlet Media and Anchor. Gimlet makes a ton of high quality, highly produced podcasts (it’s like the HBO of podcasting), while Anchor is a combination of a podcasting advertising network and a set of tools to let anyone create their own podcasts easily (it’s like the SqaureSpace of podcasts). On the one hand, it’s good to see podcasts getting some attention and interest, and Spotify is clearly one of the largest services for listening to audio files — though much more so on the music side.

My concern, however, is about the potential walling off of the podcast world. The whole concept of podcasts from the early days was the idea that anyone could create them and anyone could access them. That’s been changing a bit of late. There have been a growing number of exclusive and walled off podcasts, including on Spotify (but also on Stitcher with its Stitcher Premium and Slate with its Slate Plus program — and likely others as well).

And obviously, it’s nice to see experimentation around business models regarding podcasts, but as some are already pointing out, this could be another nail in the coffin for the idea of an open web.

In an interview about the Gimlet deal, Gimlet’s co-founders insisted that they didn’t think it was going to lead to this sort of fragmentation for existing podcasts, but future podcasts might be a different story.

Alex Blumberg: Yeah, I mean, well, Spotify said themselves this morning on the earning call that they have no intention of taking the shows that are out there that Gimlet produces and putting them behind a paywall. So those will continue to be freely distributed.

Matt Lieber: Or make an exclusivity to Spotify, the existing shows.

Alex Blumberg: Yeah. Yes. The existing shows will not be made exclusive to Spotify. They will continue … you?ll continue to get them where you get them now. And yeah, going forward, I think it?s going to be a mix. This is a new world, and we?re trying to figure out how it works. And so it?ll be a mix of exclusive things that we make exclusively for Spotify, like we?re doing right now with Mogul or things that are windowed or things that are a mix of the two. I think there?s gonna be a lot of experimentation.

Frankly, the idea of windowed podcasts doesn’t bother me that much — releasing versions a bit earlier to subscribers seems like a reasonable business model for some kinds of content. But creating full exclusives, building a fragmented world of podcasting with walled gardens sounds like a disaster for the medium. There are already people complaining about all the walled gardens in video entertainment content. We don’t need to add to that with podcasts, when the podcast world has already shown that an open, standards-based system built on RSS works just fine.

Filed Under: exclusives, open internet, paywalls, podcasts, rss, walled gardens
Companies: anchor, gimlet, spotify

The Death Of Google Reader And The Rise Of Silos

from the the-changing-web dept

I’ve been talking a lot lately about the unfortunate shift of the web from being more decentralized to being about a few giant silos and I expect to have plenty more to say on the topic in the near future. But I’m thinking about this again after Andy Baio reminded me that this past weekend was five years since Google turned off Google Reader. Though, as he notes, Google’s own awful decision making created the diminished use that allowed Google to justify shutting it down. Here’s Andy’s tweeted thread, and then I’ll tie it back to my thinking on the silo’d state of the web today:

Many people have pointed to the death of Google Reader as a point at which news reading online shifted from things like RSS feeds to proprietary platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It might seem odd (or ironic) to bemoan a move by one of the companies now considered one of the major silos for killing off a product, but it does seem to indicate a fundamental shift in the way that Google viewed the open web. A quick Google search (yeah, yeah, I know…) is not helping me find the quote, but I pretty clearly remember, in the early days of Google, one of Larry Page or Sergey Brin saying something to the effect of how the most important thing for Google was to get you off its site as quickly as possible. The whole point of Google was to take you somewhere else on the amazing web. Update It has been pointed out to me that the quote in question most likely is part of Larry Page’s interview with Playboy in which he responded to the fact that in the early days all of their competitors were “portals” that tried to keep you in with the following:

We built a business on the opposite message. We want you to come to Google and quickly find what you want. Then we?re happy to send you to the other sites. In fact, that?s the point. The portal strategy tries to own all of the information.

Somewhere along the way, that changed. It seems that much of the change was really an overreaction by Google leadership to the “threat” of Facebook. So many of Google’s efforts from the late 2000s until now seemed to have been designed to ward off Facebook. This includes not just Google’s multiple (often weird) attempts at building a social network, but also Google’s infatuation with getting users to sign in just to use its core search engine. Over the past decade or so, Google went very strongly from a company trying to get you off its site quickly to one that tried to keep you in. And it feels like the death of Reader was a clear indication of that shift. Reader started in the good old days, when the whole point of an RSS reader was to help you keep track of new stuff all over the web on individual sites.

But, as Andy noted above, part of what killed Reader was Google attempting desperately to use it as a tool to boost Google+, the exact opposite of what Google Reader stood for in helping people go elsewhere. I don’t think Google Reader alone would have kept RSS or the open web more thriving than it is today, but it certainly does feel like a landmark shift in the way Google itself viewed its mission: away from helping you get somewhere else, and much more towards keeping you connected to Google’s big data machine.

Filed Under: decentralized, google reader, open internet, rss, silos, social media
Companies: facebook, google

CBC Threatens Podcast Apps For Letting People Listen To CBC Podcasts

from the the-stupid.-it-burns dept

I really thought we were beyond this kind of idiocy by now, but apparently wherever newish technology shows up, there are technologically clueless lawyers waiting to rush in. Today’s example: lawyers for the Canadian Broadcasting Company have sent threat letters to the makers of various podcast apps for letting people listen to CBC podcasts. Apparently, the lawyers at the CBC think that because a podcast app is a commercial product, that means that you can’t use it to access their public RSS feeds that offer up the CBC’s podcasts. Here’s the email that was posted to Reddit, with the name of the specific app redacted:

I am contacting you regarding the unauthorized use of CBC’s podcasts that are being used in your <app name> app.

By using CBC’s digital services you have agreed to our our Terms of Use located at cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/termsofuse.html.

Under section 2(b) of these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from using our podcasts for commercial purposes without a proper licence from CBC.

I would ask to cease immediately the use of our unlicensed podcasts.

If you interested in CBC content and podcast, we can discuss a license fee model.

I would be happy to have a call to discuss further our content and services.

I actually listen to a few CBC podcasts on my commercial podcast player — but now I have to wonder if they’ll still be there. Either way, this is ridiculously stupid and clueless. As Cory Doctorow notes in his post about this, this is a return of the old stupid and debunked idea where some clueless sites believed you needed a license to link to them. Because that’s really all that the podcast apps are doing. They’re picking up publicly available RSS feeds and letting people listen to publicly available podcasts.

But the CBC is going one worse here: their argument is that making a tool that allows someone to load a public URL without permission is violating copyright law — it’s the same thing as saying, “Because Google is a for-profit corporation, any time a Chrome user loads a CBC page in the Chrome browser without the CBC’s permission, Google is violating CBC’s copyright.”

It is an absolutely insane idea, and as legally ignorant as one can imagine. It’s shocking that a letter of such dangerous stupidity was sent on CBC letterhead, signed by someone who apparently got a law degree at some point. If the CBC is right, then all browsers are presumptively unlawful.

There is an implied license when you put something on the web that it is there to link to. If you don’t want people to load your RSS feed, don’t publish it, or add a password to it. To argue otherwise is to argue against the internet itself.

One hopes this is just someone who is incredibly confused, or was just searching for extra work at the CBC, because if this is seriously the CBC’s policy, then that’s extraordinarily messed up.

Filed Under: cbc, copyright, linking, podcasts, rss
Companies: cbc

Thanks, Google, For Fucking Over A Bunch Of Media Websites

from the nice-of-'em dept

We’ve discussed a few times in the past how Google’s seemingly arbitrary policies are a potential problem for various media companies that often rely on the company. We’ve detailed ridiculous warnings we’ve received because our news stories covered topics that Google deemed offensive, because apparently no one at Google can distinguish between reporting on something offensive and just posting something offensive. We’ve also discussed how Google tends to present itself as a great white monolith to those who run up against its seemingly arbitrary policy decisions where there’s basically no recourse and no human to speak to.

The latest such example of this happened over the long weekend and seems to have impacted plenty of websites — including us. And, yes, part of this is our own damn fault in relying on a service from Google, which we’ve now routed around. The short version is that, many years ago, we signed up with a service from FeedBurner, to manage our RSS feeds. We did so somewhat reluctantly. We had first published an RSS feed back in April of 2001 (along with an apology for being so “late” to the RSS game) and we’d run it ourselves for years. Eventually, FeedBurner added enough features that we felt it was worthwhile to let it run our RSS feed — though that came with promises from the then FeedBurner team that if there were any problems we could easily dump it. Over time, FeedBurner got purchased by Google and subsumed into the Google machine. At some point, a few years ago, anyone still using FeedBurner had all links in those RSS feeds automatically switched to using Google’s URL shortener.

Also, several years back, we used the fact that FeedBurner had a one-click integration with Twitter to easily send all Techdirt stories to Twitter, which has become an important source of traffic. So that’s how it came to be that all of our RSS links and all of our Twitter links had Google shortened links in them. And, yes, go ahead and laugh at us for being this reliant on Google. We should have known better. And we did know better. I’d been meaning to write an article about how the Supreme Court actually used a Google shortened link in a recent decision, leading Parker Higgins from the EFF to point out some serious potential problems with this, including the fact that Google could arbitrarily change where the link goes, or if it goes anywhere at all. That seems… problematic for a Supreme Court citation.

In fact, because of all of this, some libraries (led by Harvard’s Law School Library), set up Perma.cc, which is designed with the promise of allowing “scholars, courts and others to create web citation links that will never break.” It promises to even archive the content of any link, so that if it does break, the content will still be available.

And so, yes, we were totally aware that there were potential issues, and obviously we were aware that Google sometimes makes totally arbitrary decisions that fuck with people and companies who rely on them… but sometimes even when you know all that, if it’s not a priority, you let it slide. And it wasn’t a priority, because we’ve got lots of other stuff going on these days. Well, it wasn’t a priority until yesterday. That’s because yesterday morning when we all got back to work from the long weekend (I was completely disconnected, off camping in the mountains) we had a ton of emails, messages and tweets from Techdirt readers and supporters about how all our links were broken — with every one of them pointing to a page on Google’s site saying that we had violated Google’s terms of service.

So… yeah. For what it’s worth, we received absolutely no notifications from Google about this. No explanation of how we had “violated” their policy. And it was doubly nice of them to do this over a long weekend when we were all off and away, so that nothing worked for multiple days before we had a chance to dump their RSS feed system completely.

And… apparently we were not alone. A bunch of other sites had the exact same experience and there are a bunch of people asking what the hell happened. With no explanation, no notification, Google just made a lot of websites’ RSS and Twitter feeds break completely. And this includes some other high-profile bloggers as well, like Violet Blue.

The leading theory that I’ve seen going around is that Google is actually blocking all links in any FeedBurner feed, because it’s a violation of its own terms of service. Seriously.

That’s because Google’s URL shortener’s terms of service bans “URL re-directors” and it appears that the genius engineers at Google have decided that Google-run FeedBurner is nothing more than a URL re-director and killed off everyone’s links without notice or explanation. This despite the fact that they’re the same damn company and that FeedBurner unilaterally moved everyone’s RSS feed to use Goo.gl links in the first place.

Bravo, guys.

Meanwhile, despite lots of sites complaining, and people reaching out, the Great White Monolith remained silent. Well, until an hour or so ago — just as I was putting the finishing touches on this post, after having reached out to multiple people at Google, I heard back from someone saying that this was a mistake that had been “fixed.” There’s still no official explanation of why it happened. No explanation of why no one at Google seemed to notice that all of its FeedBurner feeds were throwing up errors on every link due to Google’s own use of its own URL shortener. How that could last for five days while a bunch of sites that relied on the product were left with no recourse wasn’t explained either.

So, yeah, we’ve moved our RSS feed away from FeedBurner/Google. And you can argue that we should have done so a while ago — and you’re probably right. But, really, can’t a company as big as Google figure out how not to fuck over a bunch of media websites that make use of its services?

Filed Under: feedburner, goo.gl, integration, link shortener, media, rss, rss feeds, terms of service
Companies: google, techdirt

Apple Informs Bloggers It Will Be Using Their Content In Its 'News' App Via An Opt-Out Only 'Agreement'

from the just-thought-we-should-tell-you-about-all-the-things-we-said-you'd-do dept

UK’s The Register has noticed an Apple job posting for a rather unusual position: in-house journalist. Better surround that word with scare quotes, because it’s entirely unclear how both writing for a company and being an ethical journalist are supposed to work together.

The role requires a bachelor’s degree in journalism or “a related field”, more than five years of newsroom experience and “a deep knowledge of multiple content categories”.

“They will have great instincts for breaking news, but be equally able to recognise original, compelling stories unlikely to be identified by algorithms,” it said.

It added: “Successful editors will be ambitious, detail-oriented journalists with an obsession for great content and mobile news delivery.”

Not surprisingly, the ad fails to mention anything about independent journalism. So when news breaks about its nemesis Google’s Android, or factory conditions in China, we can be sure Apple News will be scrupulous in its complete lack of coverage.

While this foray into company-sponsored “journalism” looks to be about as credible as Verizon’s short-lived exploration of the medium (in which topics like net neutrality and government surveillance — the things EVERYONE was/is writing about — were verboten), the more interesting part of the The Register’s article is the second half.

Apple has introduced its own “News” app, and now it’s looking to fill it with content. Other people’s content. Presumably handpicked from thousands of Apple-friendly bloggers and journalists. Mike Ash received an emailed “invitation”/”agreement” from Apple informing him that his RSS feed was headed towards Apple’s News app, with or without his permission and that if he had any problem with the terms of the agreement he never had a chance to agree to, he should opt out.

When your RSS content is included in News, here are the terms that will apply:

• You agree to let us use, display, store, and reproduce the content in your RSS feeds including placing advertising next to or near your content without compensation to you. Don’t worry, we will not put advertising inside your content without your permission.
• You confirm that you have all necessary rights to publish your RSS content, and allow Apple to use it for News as we set forth here. You will be responsible for any payments that might be due to any contributors or other third parties for the creation and use of your RSS content.
• If we receive a legal claim about your RSS content, we will tell you so that you can resolve the issue, including indemnifying Apple if Apple is included in the claim.
• You can remove your RSS feed whenever you want by opting out or changing your settings in News Publisher.

Some of those receiving similar emails may have tuned out during the fine print recitation and missed the last line.

If you do not want Apple to include your RSS feeds in News, reply NO to this email and we will remove your RSS feeds.

Apple obviously doesn’t understand the word “agree.” When you make something opt-out only, there’s no agreement being made. A certain percentage of those targeted by these emails will never read them. Others may never receive the email at all. And yet, Apple claims they’ve “agreed” to these terms. Others that fail to see the opt-out wording will also be considered “agreeable.”

As Ash puts its, this isn’t an “agreement” in any sense of the word. While providing an RSS feed cedes a certain amount of control over content distribution (in all honesty, Apple never needed to half-assedly ask for permission to add the feed to its News app), it doesn’t automatically entitle Apple to pile on additional stipulations that can only be disagreed with by the recipient taking additional steps — rather than taking affirmative actions that would indicate a willingness to comply with the “agreement’s” terms.

I want everybody to know about the ridiculous stunt Apple is trying to pull here. I’d have been perfectly happy if they had just sent me an e-mail saying they were going to include my feed, and if I didn’t like it I could e-mail to opt out. I’d even be happy if they didn’t even give the option to opt out! After all, having an RSS feed in the first place is an implicit opt-in to that sort of thing. But trying to dictate terms on top of that while telling me that I automatically agree to them unless I opt out is unacceptable, even if the terms themselves are relatively benign.

This is no way to run a service… or a business. It’s very likely Apple carpet-bombed the internet with similar emails, opting-in plenty of strings-attached content without the creators’ permission or actual agreement. This is nothing but laziness, tinged with a hint of entitlement. To be “selected” by Apple for its News app is apparently supposed to be an honor. Making it opt-out saves it the hassle and expense of staffing a response team to handle opt-in emails. But that would mean sending actual invitations, rather that presuppositions that let Apple do what it wants without the explicit permission of those whose content it’s using.

Filed Under: agreements, news reader, opt-out, rss
Companies: apple

Air Canada Blocks Access To Any Google Hosted RSS Feed (Including Techdirt) For No Good Reason

from the you-had-one-job... dept

Friend (and frequent Techdirt contributor) Derek Kerton passed along a screenshot of his own recent experience trying to follow a Techdirt link at the Toronto airport and having it blocked:

The block here is clearly not directed at Techdirt, but rather at Google’s Feedproxy service — which was formerly Feedburner, a company Google bought years ago. Many, many, many sites that have RSS feeds use Google’s service as it makes it much easier to manage your RSS feed and to do some basic analytics on it.

In this case, it appears that Air Canada has (for reasons unknown) wasted good money on a company called “Datavalet” which offers “Guest Access Management” for companies who offer WiFi access to customers. Datavalet proudly highlights Air Canada and famed Canadian donut chain Tim Hortons among its customers.

And yet, despite its sole business apparently being building systems to let people access the internet, Datavalet’s tech geniuses can’t figure out that Google’s RSS feed service is not, in fact, an “Anonymizer” but merely a system for hosting RSS feeds.

These sorts of stupid false positives are not at all uncommon in the filtering business — and Datavalet is not alone in stupidly filtering out and blocking access to things it should totally allow. This story just demonstrates, once again, the ultimate stupidity and futility of trying to block internet access. No matter how well-meaning you might be, you’re going to do it wrong and you’re going to block plenty of legitimate content, including (in this case) tons of well known news publishers who rely on Google’s feedproxy service to serve up links to RSS readers, Twitter, Facebook and more.

Filed Under: blocks, filters, proxies, rss
Companies: air canada, datavalet