41–50 of 165 posts
Having worked at the BBC several times it’s yet again insular thinking. In short, they’ve spend a load of (wasted cash) on a proprietary app that is useless, but some “strategy” dork - who’s never actually built anything - thinks he can get Google to change. Good luck with that.
Technically speaking the way Podcasts work is a fascinating thing. Most on HN May be familiar with this already but Podcasts are completely open and a creator simply publishes an RSS that they then provide to a podcast App such as iTunes so it can appear on the Apple podcast app. In exchange most of these podcast apps share any listen counts and analytics with the owner of the Podcast. However, almost always the file…
Since I vehemently despise ads I have no issues with the subscription model as long as it remains convenient to play the audio any way I feel like (i.e. no intrusive DRM).
So I actually think that's a good evolution overall, I wish more of the internet moved away from ads and towards other monetization models.
For your audio app I suppose that it'll mean that you'll have to strike a deal with the podcast platforms to share some of the revenue or figure out an API to let people use their license keys on third party players. I understand that it's annoying but that sounds perfectly fair to me.
I tried a few podcast searches through Google chrome desktop and Android and I don't really see what the big deal is. The first search result link is the podcast website, and the top few buttons integrated into the results page are just listing episodes and series and such, the same way done for movies, books, etc.
In fact, it's what Apple doesn't as well https://podnews.net/article/bbc-blocks-google So why are they calling out Google specifically? And what results would they prefer?
If you don't have Apple Podcasts installed, you won't get any search results for "Apple Podcasts" (I tested this). And if you have another podcast player installed that supports iPhone-wide search (e.g. Overcast), you will get search results from that other podcast player.
This seems to me to be quite different from the Google search, which (from what I understand from the articles) always seems to link to Google Podcasts if you are using it on Android.
Technically speaking the way Podcasts work is a fascinating thing. Most on HN May be familiar with this already but Podcasts are completely open and a creator simply publishes an RSS that they then provide to a podcast App such as iTunes so it can appear on the Apple podcast app. In exchange most of these podcast apps share any listen counts and analytics with the owner of the Podcast. However, almost always the file…
I think the issue is that you put the emphasis on “exclusive” instead of “podcasts”.
If it isn’t delivered over an RSS feed that I can subscribe to in my podcast player of choice, it’s not a podcast.
Technically speaking the way Podcasts work is a fascinating thing. Most on HN May be familiar with this already but Podcasts are completely open and a creator simply publishes an RSS that they then provide to a podcast App such as iTunes so it can appear on the Apple podcast app. In exchange most of these podcast apps share any listen counts and analytics with the owner of the Podcast. However, almost always the file…
Patreon is full of closed off podcasts available to only the people with a paid subscribtion.
To suggest that Google trying to muscle into the podcast space by leveraging their search engine to direct people not to the podcast feed but to their own service is in any way equivalent to small creators adding value to their listeners by providing exclusive content is absurd to say the least.
Technically speaking the way Podcasts work is a fascinating thing. Most on HN May be familiar with this already but Podcasts are completely open and a creator simply publishes an RSS that they then provide to a podcast App such as iTunes so it can appear on the Apple podcast app. In exchange most of these podcast apps share any listen counts and analytics with the owner of the Podcast. However, almost always the file…
This was even mentioned to you roughly a month ago by someone else:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287119
Didn't seem to have much of a lasting impact on you.
While I understand the objections to Google self promoting their products and masking audience data I don't see how removing their podcasts from one of the most popular platforms helps with what the BBC claims to be important. "What we think is important is pretty simple. We want people to have easy access to the wide range of BBC programmes, not just a select few, and be able to discover and listen to new ones reall…
Wasn't this in the article - searches for BBC content is going to Google not the BBC. If they remove content from google, searches will go to BBC where they can display more than the limited range Google show.
Technically speaking the way Podcasts work is a fascinating thing. Most on HN May be familiar with this already but Podcasts are completely open and a creator simply publishes an RSS that they then provide to a podcast App such as iTunes so it can appear on the Apple podcast app. In exchange most of these podcast apps share any listen counts and analytics with the owner of the Podcast. However, almost always the file…
Admittedly I don't consume a massive amount of podcasts but I don't have a problem with this move towards a more closed platform. If people want to make money from their work as podcasters they basically have three possibilities: beg for donations, ad tons of ads before, after and often in the middle of the podcasts or move to a subscription model (which means the podcast is no longer available for free). Since I veh…
The podcasts are available for free, but funded by ads, or you can subscribe to the premium feed where the ads are edited out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They're trying to keep you on google's site. But why? I don't see a financial motivator here, unless there is some long-game that I'm not aware of. In theory, driving users to websites in a search result is likely just going to make Google more money from displaying ads. The only thing I can currently think of is they actually are trying to improve the user experience.
If you stay on a search results page you're more likely to do another search after you're done listening, rather than browsing around on BBC's site.