Apple Plans to Bankroll Original Podcasts to Fend Off Rivals

Post by Wowfunhappy » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #61

lxe wrote: post #54

I don't like where media streaming is headed. This is what everyone is doing: 1. Create a distribution platform. Users pay $14 a month to stream all content. Everyone is happy. 2. Once successful, start creating exclusive content. 3. Content creators on your platform start their own platforms and take content off of yours. 4. Now users are paying $14 for 6 different distribution/content platforms. Might as well just…

Switch 2 and 3 and you can see what the issue is. Content creators can easily create distribution platforms of their own. So if you're Disney? Well, why deal with Netflix? Netflix et al are then in a bind, in that they eventually have less and less content, so they start making content. It's kind of a vicious circle.

Post by dymk » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

anchpop wrote: post #32

marmada wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between exclusive podcasts and making a website that only runs on Safari? In both scenarios it is a company giving their product an artificial advantage. There's no technical reason that a website should only run on one browser, it kind of feels the same way with podcasts. Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that, so I guess my viewp…

> Then again Netflix makes Netflix originals, which are only available on Netflix, and I don't mind that There are arguments for why this could be a bad thing. Originals/exclusives have the effect of giving an "unfair" advantage to the company who makes them, because to watch them you need to subscribe to their service. This allows them to compete in avenues other than price and quality of service. This is a similar…

Post by beisner » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

Reedx wrote: post #63

lxe wrote: post #54

I don't like where media streaming is headed. This is what everyone is doing: 1. Create a distribution platform. Users pay $14 a month to stream all content. Everyone is happy. 2. Once successful, start creating exclusive content. 3. Content creators on your platform start their own platforms and take content off of yours. 4. Now users are paying $14 for 6 different distribution/content platforms. Might as well just…

Still a lot better than cable since you can watch what you want in real time and no commercials. Also you really don't need to subscribe to all of them. Who needs that much content? I can't even keep up with my Netflix or YouTube queue, let alone the others. I have Amazon Prime, but never use it. HBO for a couple shows, but could subscribe only during their seasons.

Post by gnopgnip » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

lxe wrote: post #54

I don't like where media streaming is headed. This is what everyone is doing: 1. Create a distribution platform. Users pay $14 a month to stream all content. Everyone is happy. 2. Once successful, start creating exclusive content. 3. Content creators on your platform start their own platforms and take content off of yours. 4. Now users are paying $14 for 6 different distribution/content platforms. Might as well just…

Post by mattferderer » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

snailmailman wrote: post #65

Swenrekcah wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree that if it’s not accessible on any app then it’s not a podcast. I also would pay for a podcast app that could guarantee that the audio file was the same for all listeners.

I wish the later could be possible. I have no idea how podcast-ads work but lately i noticed some podcasts giving me seemingly location-dependent ads. (about something in a nearby major city) either everyone is getting advertisements for a very dallas targeted ad, or are the podcast companies making several versions of the podcast and serving different ones to different people? sounds like a lot of extra work to me,…