Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Wants People to Pay for Podcasts (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Bloomberg report: There are several hundred thousand podcasts available through Apple's podcast app, and all of them cost the same amount: nothing. Starting today, you can have access to a far smaller slate of podcasts for a few bucks a month over at Audible, the audio books service owned by Amazon. Audible is betting that avid podcast fans will pay $4.95 per month for Channels, an exclusive selection of ad-free original podcasts, comedy performances, and audio renditions of written articles. The subscription is free for current Audible members. While Apple has always loomed large over podcasting, other big companies like Amazon, Google, and Spotify are beginning to inch into the space. Channels is Amazon's first major foray into the business and puts it in a position to be both a platform for and creator of new shows. "They are doing to audio what they did with Prime Video -- it's vertical integration, and it puts them in a position where they can firmly participate in the larger development of culture," said Nick Quah, who writes the podcasting newsletter Hot Pod.Is the right move? Will people for it? AdAge writes:A lot of people don't think there will be a Netflix of podcasting. Andy Bowers, chief content officer of Slate's Panoply Network, said the best chance for a subscription model to work would be to offer one that offers ad-free versions of many of the most popular podcasts that exist today. "Short of that -- and I don't see anyone doing that at the moment -- I think the ad-supported version is here to stay for a while," he said. Still, a handful of other podcasting businesses have begun experimenting with paid premium services. Acast, a podcast app, created an option for its podcasters to begin charging for content earlier this year. Midroll Media charges $4.99 a month for a service called Howl that offers access to original shows and archives of popular podcasts like "WTF with Marc Maron."
but man listening to Art Bell on AM was awesome. What a kook but that was some good entertainment.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Also, DRM is guaranteed to make me not sign up. If I can't throw some MP3s on a flash drive or stream to my network connected radio, it's worthless.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not necessarily. Most of the podcasts I listen to, the people know very well what they are talking about. BBC, CBC, TVO, NPR. If you get your podcasts from good sources, they will have good content. There is nothing specific about a podcast that requires it to be of inferior quality.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
People said the exact same thing about cable TV in the 1970's. "Why would I pay for something I can get for fee with an antenna?"
Amazon has to make it worth it. Time will tell. There are a ton of crappy podcasts out there. Maybe some pre-filtering would be worth it.
Not for me, mind you...I'm too cheap to pay for anything like that, but Amazon seems to think that they have something worth paying for.
Just my $0.02.
-JJS
You are wrong.
There are plenty of good podcasts (I prefer netcast actually) where the people definitely know what they are talking about. Pretty much any NPR or TWIT netcast is worth listening to, imo.
If you want a specific example, try listening to Security Now some time.
Anyway, to the point of the article, skipping a couple of minutes of "commercials" (hit the FF button 2 times) is totally worth the price of the netcast ($0)
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
$5 per month for this service, $5 per month for that service... pretty soon your monthly media bill looks like the overly expensive cable bill you cut the cord to get rid of.
So what? 90% of everything is crap.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Which is about the same value as a podcast.
audio files of people talking about shit they don't know much about and that you only listen to because you're bored out of your mind.
You are simply listening to the wrong ones.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I have more podcasts than I can listen to, and most of them are free. I pay a subscription for an ad-free version of the Savage Lovecast, but that version also comes with extra content. I listen to the ads of the other shows and for the most part, it's actually stuff I want. I also listen to a lot of shows from the CBC, so I've kind of already paid for those.
I can't believe they can give me greater value than what I'm getting. Shows in my schedule, more plentiful than I can actually handle, and all of them finding their own way to monetise. The current hands-off system is one of the best things Apple has ever done. The only people that don't like it are advertisers that don't want to be cut out of any advertising loops. (Meanwhile, the cost per conversion that podcast advertisers pay is insanely cheap.)
Most podcasts either are already ad-free, or the ads are equivalent to a commercial break... which people already deal with on television and every other form of media.
Nobody is going to pay for this.
Hulu is free.
Hulu Plus is $8/month, and has a lot more content than Hulu (more shows and more episodes of shows). The shows have ads.
Hulu Plus without ads is $12/month, has the same content as Hulu Plus, but without ads (in almost all cases - a few shows have a single ad at the beginning and the end, but it's only a handful).
Why can't we call these things what they are?
"Podcasts" are audio files of people talking about shit they don't know much about and that you only listen to because you're bored out of your mind.
On the contrary Podcasts are probably the outstanding example of user-generated content (or at least non big-corporation content).
Video is extremely difficult to make look professional, but making a podcast with professional or at least decent sound quality is doable and far cheaper. Distribution is also a big advantage since you don't need to adhere to specific formats like a television or even radio program does such as being X minutes long or having planned commercial breaks.
And instead of "people talking about shit they don't know much about" you get knowledgeable experts who for once don't have to worry about meddling from corporate overlords who are ignorant or have different objectives (like promoting a corporate agenda).
I stole this Sig
The difference here is that 1970s cable TV offered vastly different programming that was previously unavailable. That was its main attraction - fans of niche TV genres could find channels that catered to specific subjects.
This appears to be moving in the opposite direction. The idea that users are paralyzed by option overload and want to pay someone to limit those options (the 'far smaller slate')? Doesn't sound like a money maker to me.
Where were you 13 years ago when podcasts became popoular? (You know, named after the ubiquitous iPod, which only played audio at the time)/ The fight's been lost and everyone calls it podcasts.
And to be more accurate, they're really more like on-demand radio shows, which can be well produced or crap. You'll find those that have a history of broadcasting on the radio are generally of very high quality. But instead of streaming it, you download it as a file.
And Apple's been down this path - earlier this year some podcasters called out Apple to update the podcast app and allow stuff like paid subscriptions and stuff...
You really need to visit TotalDrama. Let me know what you think of the TWIT Network after that.