I didn’t have any philosophical disagreements with the podcast until the last episode, when the subject of web hosting was discussed. The host, Molly Schwartz, talked about how many people have the expectation that their podcast show should live forever, and didn’t realize that if they don’t pay for a hosting service (like Libsyn, etc.), or host it themselves on a website, that their files would disappear. How can people in 2019 still have this expectation? (see Site deaths) The idea that someone can create a web asset (podcast, website, video, whatever) for zero cost and still have complete control is ridiculous! I also think that the image of a person producing a podcast as someone who does not have much technical ability is misleading. If you are not just using your phone as a voice recorder, and are recording and editing audio and handling sound equipment, you have to have some technical ability. To emphasize the need to spend effort to make sure that data is not lost, but then put the idea out there that it is too much work to do self-hosting or create a RSS feed is inconsistent at best, trending to stupid at worst. You can only get something for nothing for so long, and you can’t expect to have the functionality of paid services on a free basis.

I also thought that the idea in episode 5 of “having to figure out what to do about PreserveThisPodcast.org” was ludicrous! With all the planning of this series and archiving experts working on the project, how could they have not planned to keep this information beyond the end of the grant funding? Why didn’t the organization who got the grant (Metro New York Library Council) take responsibility for keeping this available? At a minimum, it seems like a terrible plot device to motivate/manipulate podcasters into preserving their work.

Don’t get me wrong on my intent – I love that this podcast was created. As a result, I am starting to think about how to preserve my own web content. The thing that sticks out as inconsistent is perpetuating the idea of expecting something for nothing (free hosting, etc). If that is a person’s expectation when they create something on the web, that person should not shed any tears if it disappears.

Content providers trying to lock in users is not a new concept. All of the major video streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon) are producing original content that can only be viewed through their service. Apple and Google through iTunes and Google Play are gateways that people access podcasts, and Apple has been called out before for controlling podcast distribution through its extensive directory.

To me, these are the two ways of avoiding the takeover:

1. Innovate on features and discoverability
2. Find ways to help podcast producers know more about their listeners

Marco Arment took a nice step on point 1 with his clip feature that he added to the Overcast podcast app. Other innovations might be to support more distributed directories to assist in podcast discovery (OPML inclusion, anyone?).

Progress on point 2 might be difficult (requiring collaboration, between podcast app makers and other groups of people), but it might be better to band together to create new standards/processes/protocols than to be “picked off” one by one.

What do you call the distribution of audio content through a paywall or app? Appcasting.

Simple, easy to understand, right?

This is my response to Dave Winer’s podcast definition and followup podcast on this topic. Ken Smith eloquently describes the downsides/fallout of a move to appcasting.

Thoughts/opinions? Let’s hear from you!