Hacker News Reader

Comment by rahuldottech | Hacker News Reader

Cool idea? Yes. Good idea? No.

If we do stuff like this, the podcast industry will switch to a closed system which would require you to install proprietary apps to listen to stuff. Likely several different apps for different shows and companies.

As it exists today, it's a very open system, with publicly accessible feeds and the ability to use any app. Don't ruin it. It's not hard to press the "skip forward 30 seconds" button when an ad starts playing.

Edit: also, it's super unethical to have a paid app that profits by taking away any scope for content creators to monetize. Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Didn't realise it was a paid app at first. Shame on you, OP.

View on HN

I agree that this app is somewhat less than ethical and that folks should refrain from using or supporting it. It's one thing to block 3rd-party ads on the Web, which come with fairly severe privacy implications for the user and ruin their Web browsing experience - but none of this applies to ads which are simply part of an open audio podcast. If the industry shifts to proprietary players in order to enforce ads, this will mean more invasion of privacy, not less, and we will all lose.

While those are your parameters for why ads are objectionable, they aren't universal, and concerns about privacy implications AND user experience both apply to ads in podcasts. Personally I don't mind listening to ads in podcasts, but I don't see the doomsday scenario here; plenty of podcasters already paywall episodes on Patreon. As with online publishing, the alternative to ads is the subscriber model.

Some podcast companies are inserting user targeted ads into the file.

At the point of download?

Yes.

Stuff like this https://podads.podbean.com

When 37Signals found out their podcast host was doing listener tracking they dumped them and put out a podcast about it:

https://podbay.fm/podcast/1264193508/e/1572350400

Podcast ads have a much more insidious problem in that they perpetuate and encourage a disingenuous, lie-for-dollars[1] culture. Hearing podcasters gushing about products that just so happen to sponsor their podcast is exactly what advertisers are paying for -- that it's "genuine" and someone who you theoretically trust is pitching whatever they're selling -- and it's just incredibly greasy and distasteful. It is the lowest form of sponsorship.

When I see ads on the NYTimes I know they're just whoever paid for the space. It isn't the NYTimes claiming to have curated the best of the best and they're only showing you the greatest products and this just happens to be The Best pickup truck out there, etc. Eh.

[1] - Every podcaster is going to claim that no, it's really what they think, what a marvelous coincidence. It's amazing what someone will "think" when their paycheque relies upon it.

I was about to write a snarky, contradictory response to this, but I think you have a point.

When a normal ad comes on, it's outside of the "content" you're used to. A different voice, a different presentation style, a different part of the webpage, a different section of the newspaper.

When the content producer themselves is presenting the ad, however, you feel a bit more subconsciously inclined to trust them. IMO this is why YouTube ads have taken off so well.

Obviously I know that it's just an ad, but in the back of my head I'm paying more attention to it.

Not really non US listers especially in the UK find this super creepy

I agree completely. My favorite podcasts are crowd-funded with no ads, but the least-bad approach to ad reads is when someone reads a script, verbatim, in a bored monotone. Especially when it's not one of the hosts reading, but a producer whose voice you don't recognize and implicitly trust. But this is really rare.

You're right, but is the solution to that an adblocker? Or should users simply follow the age old principle of "buyer beware"?

I'm all for adblockers on the web, due to their tracking nature, but podcast ads aren't served from some third party that eats up bandwidth, causes page jumps or autoplays video. They aren't even like Spotify ads, which seem to know when you've muted audio.

Is it really that taxing to fast forward through them?

I'm not speaking for or against this product. It's just remarkable how so many see the current podcast ad tactic as somehow wholesome or less obnoxious, when really it's a world worse. And then they'll claim that it doesn't affect them, caveat emptor, etc, which is simply bullshit -- if they've bought into it being wholesome and "valuable", they are in every way the mark. They are the reason advertisers love this gimmick in podcasts.

> if they've bought into it being wholesome and "valuable"

I don't know if that's a representative opinion. Ads are ads. Having the host read copy doesn't tell me anything about whether the product works for me.

There's a scene in Fight Club where Brad Pitt gestures at a bus stop men's underwear ad with a chiseled model on it and says dismissively "Is that what real men look like?"

Moments later, he is shirtless, with a perfectly chiseled body (that fitness trainers will tell you is impossible to keep year-round) fighting waiters and parking lot attendants.

The movie itself is an ad. It would never have sold well if two schlubby middle-aged actors had been cast to play it.

> Every podcaster is going to claim that no, it's really what they think, what a marvelous coincidence. It's amazing what someone will "think" when their paycheque relies upon it.

I think there's a lot of truth to this, but there are also plenty of podcasters who will literally try all the products themselves (or have some staff do so) and if the thing is no good, pick a different sponsor. The biggest shows are often in a position to do this without any real sacrifice, other than the time investment in testing: they have loads of sponsors knocking at their door that are all offering similar (large) amounts of money, so they're free to pick the one they honestly like.

Here, I feel like the gray area is that they're unlikely to have tried the alternatives to the product. So they'll give a ringing endorsement of Squarespace or Mailchimp or Purple mattresses, but all that shows is that it's probably decent stuff, not the actual highest-quality or best-price option for the listener.

Overall, though, I feel like it's practically a miracle that we have an online media industry that is free of the totally maxed-out creepiness of website advertising (tracking across media, profiling down to the individual level, etc.) And it's even making money. Just listen with a healthy skepticism about the ads. I think most people do.

"they have loads of sponsors knocking at their door that are all offering similar (large) amounts of money, so they're free to pick the one they honestly like."

I profoundly doubt this. It is a tiny set of sponsors who keep the entire podcast industry afloat, and remarkably every podcaster is just a great fan of that tiny set. It's transparent and profoundly disingenuous. It's an old school friend now bothering you to buy their MLM bullshit candles or knick knacks.

But again, I have absolutely no doubt that each and every one of those podcasters have convinced themselves that they thoroughly considered every option and this foam bed (indistinguishable from any other) at a huge premium, this fear-mongering VPN, this insurance option, this piece of luggage, etc, are all simply the best for their listeners. One would have to be profoundly gullible to actually believe that.

From an ethical perspective, if a podcast is doing this tactic they deserve every skip they get.

On the scale of scumbaggery, tracking ads that pitch to my profile are a world less vile than the current podcast pitch.

I was going to play devils advocate until your edit of having the paid app (i didn't download it)

This is in essence no longer something that's just a cool idea and a nice novelty, it's why streaming companies and creators especially complain about losing revenue.. OP is taking what I would prefer to go to creators.

Agree. And it helps in general that podcast ads are largely inoffensive. I can't watch terrestrial television with its obnoxious commercials anymore. But I don't remember the last time a podcast advertisement annoyed me enough to even skip it.

Ditto. Podccast ads are pretty much ideal: non-tracking, generally non-intrusive, relevant to the audience, and in some cases quite entertaining (see: Reply All). Podcasters need to be able to keep the lights on, and the ads they run are about as consumer-friendly as they get.

> Agree. And it helps in general that podcast ads are largely inoffensive.

For me some podcast hosts are so ridiculously funny that I actually intentionally listen to their ad reads. There's been a time or two when I've gone back and re-listened to an ad because I was dying from laughter the whole time. Most of the time it's because the hosts are ripping on the advertiser a bit but it still seems like an amazingly good value for them. The only other time I'll ever do this is for Super Bowl ads, even though those are generally pretty lame. (Other hosts do just dryly read their ads with nothing ad-libbed -- or don't read ads for their own show at all (NPR) -- and I'll usually skip those when it's convenient.)

My problem with podcast ads is how repetitive they are. I'm at a point where I hate squarespace so much because nearly every podcast I listen to is sponsored by them. Same goes for Simplisafe and ZipRecruiter. It's extremely tiring and I would consider this app for automating skipping of ads because of this reason.

So its ethical to manually skip the ads but not to automate the process?

Sure, because some percentage of the users will still listen to the ad, especially if it's the first time they're hearing it. Make it automated, that guarantees that no one is listening to it. Which would mean no revenue for the content creators. Which would lead to a really crappy system.

But advertisements in podcasts are commonly pre-recorded by the podcast host(s) - so the host would still be paid for the advertisement, before it goes online.

If the advertiser isn’t given any information about playback at ad time, then the revenue would not be affected.

If no users are listening to ads, then no one will purchase ads on the podcasts and the revenue for the creators will dry up.

Or they find alternative revenue streams such as:

a.) Patronage/donation model b.) Paywalls c.) Integrated the advertising into the program rather than making it a separate ad read

Not sure if you are suggesting that is good or bad. I see all those as bad. I don't like being guilted, paywalls just suck (also for the podcasters, they lose all their word of mouth), and blurring the lines between ads and content is awful

Unless it becomes widely known that a large share of the podcast listening audience uses apps that automatically skip the ads. That devalues the podcasts to advertisers.

That might work in the very short term.

It shouldn't take long for advertisers to realize that a) podcast listeners tend to skip over ads or b) podcast ads don't result in sales.

I think some ads are sponsored links / promo codes. I am not sure in that situation if they get paid for reading the ad or only get commission from the sales.

Well the question I don't see answered anywhere is how well this actually works. For some podcasts where the ad's are per-recorded and played across a couple different podcasts it seems the problem is pretty easy to solve.

OTOH, I've seen a number of youtube and podcasts where the Ads are read by the hosts as part of the show and are unique for each podcast. I heard one once recently where the host must have had 10 different versions of their travel ad, for the same place worded in slightly different ways. Maybe they were just ad'libing them. Either way, I have a hard time believing this can be easily detected. The flow and voice intonation was such that I didn't even realize it was an ad until 3/4 way through.

The app has a list of the dozen podcast it works with. It doesn't work with any other. That alone should tell you the app simply identifies some sort of jingle or pattern. Or these are the podcasts that OP is willing to manually tag as each episode is released.

Podcasts and podcast advertisers know we can skip them, they accept this. If they see a lot of users skip ALL of them, it isn't okay.

How are they seeing that ads have been skipped? That seems like it would only happen if your player is spying on you.

The coupon codes or referral links being advertised will see a drop in traffic.

That seems like it would only happen if your player is spying on you.

No. It works the same way any newspaper, radio, and TV advertising work.

If advertisers sponsor a podcast and get zero return, then the advertisers stops sponsoring the podcast and the podcast dies.

A world where all podcasts have lo-fi production values and only weirdos with too much time and a LOT of interest in the topic at hand make them would be wonderful. The audio version of the early web. They can have podcast web rings instead of ads!

Exactly. Because the podcaster is saying the script (normally), we may actually listen (pay attention) to it. That's what they hope for. If there isn't even a chance in hell that we would even START to hear it, then there's no more ad spending. Which means there's less content because not everyone can do the stuff for free at high quality.

Even if you skips 90% of a 90 second ad, the advertiser still has 9 seconds to get a pitch in. Sometimes in advertising, just reminding the users you exist is enough. If you hear "Dave's Pizza" twelve times before going to the grocery store, then you're much more likely to subconsciously grab one if you see them one in the freezer.

Podcast advertisers often fall into a category of product where name recognition is important. They are okay knowing that most of us skip the ads because they know the audience will hear the name before they have a chance to skip the ad.

I will say I do agree for the most part. I did try out square space for 2 months when I had a business idea. The idea was flawed to begin with... mainly because I came up with it when really drunk... but hey, I wasn't displeased with them (their ads are pretty honest) and I never would have tried them out if they didn't slap checks in a bunch of youtuber faces.

Actually... now that I think about it... I think I do respond better to podcast ads. There's 5 or 6 instances, this past year, that I checked out companies because of them. I've only done that once for a tv commercial in my lifetime and... I don't think I ever clicked on a banner ad before... on purpose. Never on purpose. Accident, yes.

I think it's because they're not, "OH MY SHIT LOOK AT ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" types of ads.

Some people would prefer not to listen to podcasts at all, if they had to listen to ads.

Then they can do that. It's pretty simple to do.

You just decide the transaction isn't worth it, and then not execute the transaction. I do it whenever I decide not to buy a Tesla.

Edit: meant to say I regularly don't buy a Tesla, not regularly do. College student, definitely couldn't afford one

Transaction? I asked for an MP3 and you sent it. Transaction over.

Exactly. And if you don't like what's in the MP3, you have the option of not listening to it.

... or just parts of it.

Your loss - I have found tons of interesting things that I would not have Mike Duncan's revolutions is just one.

No loss here. I listen to several podcast, but I usually skip the ads. If that was not possible, I would not listen to podcasts. Podcasts can be nice, but there is an abundance of people that want their voices heard.

Take this a step farther.

Advertisers care about conversions -- this is why promo codes exist. If podcast advertisers don't see a steady tick of users spending money via the promo codes they distribute, they'll stop advertising. The impressions are way less valuable than conversions are.

So is it unethical (or "un-strategic" if you prefer) to not buy from brands that are mentioned by your favorite podcaster? If people en-mass start making educated purchasing decisions and ignoring openly silly ads from WeWork or matress companies, is that harmful to the industry?

Advertising itself in its current state is harmful. People treat it like, "you listen for ads and you get the content for free." But no -- the ads manipulate you. If on average most people are not being manipulated, then the system doesn't work. The manipulation is the part that advertisers care about. It's not free. Objectively, if advertising was not manipulating your purchasing decisions in a non-optimal way, it would not be worth doing.

From that perspective, I'm more than happy to burn advertising to the ground, even if it means taking out a few podcasters.

You can also take the perspective that advertising is a zero-sum game where nobody wins and consumers aren't affected, but every business has to spend just to keep up with each other. In which case, I'm also happy to burn the industry to the ground to reduce pointless corporate waste and reduce the cost of entry for new businesses.

Yes. The current system can't predict one way or the other if users are skipping the ads; if this app were to become widespread, it becomes known factually and advertising revenue dries up.

Advertising revenue should dry up.

Is it ethical not to look at a billboard when you're walking down the street?

Is it ethical to mute the TV when commercials come up?

I think it's just your choice, right?

I believe this is false equivalency. I probably agree with the overall argument that it's not unethical, but in both examples you give you're not requesting someone's service in exchange for nothing. For TV, you're already paying for a service, so do what you will. For billboard's, you're literally getting nothing in return or asking to be bombarded by ads.

A better example would probably adblocking on either YouTube or any website. The service is otherwise free, and you're demanding it in some sense.

> For TV, you're already paying for a service, so do what you will.

There are still lots of people who watch ad supported TV broadcast over the air. So I think muting commercials or recording with a DVR and skipping over later is a decent analogy.

This wasn't meant to be a question of ethics, but one of incentives— let's view it from a standpoint of "will this ultimately be bad for society."

> Is it ethical not to look at a billboard when you're walking down the street?

This is fine, you're in a public space where somebody paid for an ad on nearby private property, and society wouldn't be worse off if everybody ignored billboards, advertisers were no longer willing to pay for billboards, and we got rid of the lot of them.

> Is it ethical to mute the TV when commercials come up?

This is fine, you paid for the TV and you pay for cable, and there will be no consequences to many people muting the TV during commercials.

If, however, you're given something for free that could be taken away, and it is able to be offered for free due to the business model of ads, taking this concept to its conclusion where everybody automatically skips over ads will make the free and open podcast system no longer viable.

Advertisers will no longer be willing to pay for ad space on podcasts, and the podcasters will have to move to charging per episode, or more likely, getting tiny royalties from a company like Spotify.

> This is fine, you paid for the TV and you pay for cable, and there will be no consequences to many people muting the TV during commercials.

The nature of advertising has turned the entire TV device into an advertising machine that phones home whether I mute and look away or watch "ad-supported" content, or paid-for content, or my own content. I cannot buy a TV that does not funnel my private life into someone's advertising budget thanks to Smart TVs and the normalization of surveillance capitalism.

If a podcast can not survive off its syndication, its advertising, its royalties, nor off its direct subscriptions, then the market has clearly spoken: that podcast is not providing value to listeners, and if it weren't subsidized as a channel by which advertising campaigns reach a desired market segment, it wouldn't exist at all. Clearly if this scenario causes you to shed tears, perhaps consider donating or subscribing, otherwise that podcast isn't a valuable product, it was a line item on an advertising campaign meant to reach you.

You're conflating things, imagine that billboard was not on the wall and instead it jumped in front of you on the way home.

Imagine the advertisement was not on TV but it was ringing your doorbell.

An option is ethical, one when you replace someone else's work is not. (i don't like advertisement thrown in my face either).

As much as I hate the clever marketing tactics that happen, I wouldn't want them to have one more excuse to invade me more.

This seems like one of them

it's ethical to not look at a billboard.

it's probably not ethical to vandalize a billboard so other people can't see the ad on it.

it's definitely not ethical to sell billboard vandalism as a service, or to patronize a service that does that.

I don't believe GP was making a point about ethics, but rather one of economics. In general it's not smart to advertise this to people if you want to keep your podcasts free for as long as possible.

The twist here is that he's make a profit from automating that process. It's not necessarily unethical, but it's morally dubious, at least.

I agree that making money by effectively making it harder for the original content creators to make money is not super ethical in my book and as such I'd refuse to use such an app.

That being said:

>If we do stuff like this, the podcast industry will switch to a closed system which would require you to install proprietary apps to listen to stuff. Likely several different apps for different shows and companies.

You can dismiss all adblockers that way. Except it's not really how it'll work: if people really make it inconvenient to access the content people will pirate instead. Podcasts are also generally small audio files which makes them super easy to share.

Instead I think that blocking ads (which, IMO, are a cancer for our society and I have no moral or ethical problem blocking everywhere) will incentivize podcasters to find alternative schemes to make money. For instance you could have a "Spotify for podcasts" that lets you watch podcasts ad-free with a subscription. There actually already are a few services for that (Stitcher comes to mind). I actually pay for a Stitcher subscription to listen to my podcasts ad-free.

I want to believe in a future version of the internet where everybody and their dog aren't spending their entire resources conning me into watching ads I don't want to see.

I believe users have the full right to filter content they listen to both manually (by skipping forward) and via automated means (by having a robot skip forward)[0].

The benefit of podcasts being an open system -- of them being raw MP3 files, is that users can manipulate and control the content they're being served. An open, ethical system that can only exist because users don't exercise their rights is of little value.

There are already segments of the industry that want to turn podcasting into a closed system (see Spotify), because as good as the current model is, it's still more profitable to turn podcasting into a top-down controlled system with gatekeepers. If business interests are currently what is keeping the ecosystem open, then I think we're doomed, because Netflix is always going to be the more profitable business model.

[0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter

> I believe users have the full right to filter content they listen to both manually (by skipping forward) and via automated means (by having a robot skip forward).

Cool, let's automate away creators' ability to make money by giving away free content. Sure, podcasting will die and be replaced by closed, DRM-encumbered audio platforms, but then I'll just steal that same content. And really, isn't killing an open medium better than manually skipping ads a couple times an hour?

> by giving away free content

Ads aren't free.

Yes, it sort of stinks that we might have to come up with another way to fund podcasts. But we should come up with an alternate funding model anyway -- ads aren't ethical, and they're not free. The only reason anyone pays a podcaster to display ads is because statistically speaking, that recommendation is going to manipulate someone into buying that product regardless of its quality or relevance to that person's life.

If you listen to advertising but don't buy the advertised products, you're not supporting creators. Other people who buy those products are supporting creators, and they are subsidizing you. Your money is valuable, not your attention. Your purchasing decisions are valuable, not your ears.

So the idea that advertising is a completely neutral act that somehow magically gives us tons of content for free, without any knock-on effects towards society or business costs or acceptable content is one of the most widely-shared, pervasive misconceptions on the modern Internet. Ads are not magically making money appear from nowhere, ordinary people are indirectly paying for those ads by having their consuming habits altered against their will and without their permission.

It's better for us to just acknowledge that podcasting has a cost, and to just deal with that fact -- not to keep hiding behind the idea that there's a payment scheme out there that will somehow pay someone's salary without affecting anyone else in any way. Just directly support creators: it's healthier for the ecosystem, and it's healthier for you.

> And really, isn't killing an open medium better than manually skipping ads a couple times an hour?

An open medium that you're scared to manipulate is not an open medium. If we're all scared to attach metadata to an mp3 file, then who cares what format the file is in? Who cares whether or not a file has DRM if you're not willing to touch it?

Users have the right to exercise their rights. They also have the right to delegate those rights to other people and software products[0] -- ie, to have a piece of software exercise their filter rights on their behalf. Any world in which people aren't free to filter the content they consume is just another dystopia.

[0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate

By your own logic, podcasters would be releasing their own proprietary apps to prevent users from pressing the "skip forward 30 seconds" button when an ad starts playing. Why isn't that happening?

Because right now they're counting on the fact that some percentage of the listeners won't skip the ad, especially if it's the first time they're hearing it.

Make the ad-skipping automatic, then it's guaranteed that no one is listening to ads. (no ads == no revenue). This will completely ruin the system as it exists today.

> Why isn't that happening?

Because most podcasters make no money and don't have the skills to write an app or service to do it for them.

Larger companies like NPR and BBC already do it.

OP's concern isn't about individual producers. It's about media and tech companies like Spotify and Stitcher gobbling up the market.

Because nobody can prove people are skipping the ads. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, if you make an app that's sole purpose is that and it becomes massively popular then you know a huge chunk of the audience is skipping said ads...

No, what's going to happen is that this will kill independent podcasting and make it unsustainable to run a podcast without agreements with Spotify or Apple or someone.

We're already headed this direction. Apple is capturing usage statistics, NPR One Captures usage statistics, Spotify is absolutely capturing this information. Advertisers have gotten a taste for blood with all the data they've gotten from the web, and they want it for podcasts.

Breakdown the ethics violation you see happening here. The way I read your argument, Podcast apps have an ethical obligation to ensure users can't easily should the ads.

And NPR was also all gung-ho about adding a whole tracking API into podcasts https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-extra/2018/12/11/675250553/...

But no major podcast apps have implemented it (because why the hell would they?)

Ok. It seems to be nearly unanimous here that as clever as this app is, it’s on a fast track to a tragedy-of-the-commons situation in podcasting.

Allow me to propose a pivot.

Most listeners know in the first few seconds whether an ad falls into the “hey, that actually sounds interesting” category or the “no, I still don’t need a Squarespace/Casper/Mailchimp” category. Take a page from YouTube and play the first 3-5 seconds of the ad, and then give the user a big skip button that skips the entire ad segment.

Your app will still have the USP of a better experience than jumping back and forward in 15-30 second increments, and it preserves the ad-supported model with a proven UX pattern validated by one of the biggest advertising platforms in the world. You could even form partnerships with podcast networks who want insight into what ads get skipped and which get played for longer.

This HN post brought to you by mortenjorck product consulting.

> play the first 3-5 seconds of the ad, and then give the user a big skip button

There is another medium which has a similar interaction model, and most people seem to really dislike those, i.e. in-game cut scenes with surprise quicktime events.

Anecdotally, I listen to a podcast where they make money off merch and Patreon only. No need for advertising.

That only works for podcasts with big, dedicated audiences.

same with ads.

How do you know about the merch or Patreon? Do they not even tell you about it?

Because if they do, that's an ad.

There's a huge difference between being asked to support the people making something you enjoy and allowing totally unrelated and reactionary monied interests access to my attention. The latter can talk to the hand because I don't wanna hear about it.

To each their own, but I personally would rather have someone saying "here's some cool power tools / skateboard equipment / digital pianos you might be interested in buying" than "don't you feel terrible for not sending us money for this thing you can get for free?"

I don't like being guilted, I really don't. But I understand that some feel differently.

It's bad either way, only adequate public funding for arts and media can resolves some of these problems.

I agree with you...I have long been saying that intellectual property (and that includes software) is going to either be subject to artificial scarcity (to me, the biggest evil * ), or horrible funding models like advertising.

Public funding makes a ton of sense, personally I think it is the only economically efficient solution, but doing it well is hard. I scanned your history here to see a bit more on where you are coming from (I agree with you on a lot of things), and I see that this is something you talk about a lot.

I notice you say elsewhere "the enemy is the state". That makes it tricky to say "the state should decide what stuff gets funded." I always tend to be up against that whenever I suggest that state funded IP makes sense. I still believe there is a way.

I have more thoughts on how we could actually move toward such things, my contact info is in my profile, feel free to email.

* see chapter 25 of the Grapes of Wrath for a beautifully written essay on the evils of artificial scarcity: https://genius.com/John-steinbeck-grapes-of-wrath-chapter-25...

If users aren't willing to support a podcast then that's a big signal as to what the value of that podcast is.

When I look at the list of podcasts I subscribe to there aren't really any that I would miss terribly if they decided to stop. I have too many options when I want to listen to something.

I on the other hand have no interest in buying a $30 t-shirt emblazoned with a garish podcast logo, that was manufactured in a sweatshop for $0.50.

Let them read all the NordVPN and Dollar Shave Club ads they want. I'd rather put up with that than the wastage that goes into production of merch and swag.

How is this different than, say, Brave blocking in-flow YouTube ads? Minus the fact that this one is a paid app.

It doesn't have to be different. They can both be a bad idea.

It's not different. Brave's business model of inserting themselves as a middleman and charging a ransom is awfully unethical.

You sound like you work for Google.

They did.

That's correct.

There's seriously no need for a personal attack.

I really hate ads. I skip or block all of them as much as possible. If i can automate that, i will. It is the main reason i do not use regular magazines, tv and radio.

You are the perfect user for AdSkipPro :)

You could say the same thing about adblockers in general. It's unfortunately pushed more content creators to put up paywalls and move to subscription-based models.

The smart thing to do with apps like this is to keep it to yourself, but inevitably someone will release one for the masses.

Yeah, but ads on the web have lots of issues like tracking and malicious code injection, so blocking them makes total sense.

A lot fewer people would be using ad blockers in browsers if web ads were as simple as podcast ads (the equivalent would be unobtrusive static images with links) .

> (the equivalent would be unobtrusive static images with links)

You could also have dynamic images thank to GIFs. Just think of the possibilities that would be enabled by that - "Hit the monkey!", "Shoot the gangster!" - An incredibly effective way to drive engagement.

While I agree that it's a little sketchy to profit from this, the basic idea seems completely fine to me.

Practically, what is different about manually skipping every single ad (which I - and presumably other people who might consider a skipping feature useful - currently do) versus automatically skipping them? It seems to me the only difference is that automatic skipping frees me from a minor annoyance.

That's Luminary's business model, as far as I can tell.

Yeah. I'm glad they haven't taken off much. I love how open the podcast system is. I'd absolutely hate for it to be ruined.

I'm not actually against paid-for podcasts, but hiving it off into a separate app does not appeal.

How would you deliver paid-for podcasts otherwise? You could put them behind an RSS feed with a ?passcode maybe? Not sure.

That's basically how most Patreon supported podcasters do it - a private feed.

It's an open system because the numerous and ongoing attempts to make it a closed system have been unsuccessful because users don't like that. Spotify and Stitcher are the most recent attempts to secure tons of exclusive content behind an app gate or a paywall.

Even if this app is successful beyond OP's wildest dreams it's going to take 1% of the market or whatever -- the idea that this is going to cause a sudden shift in business strategy, and that that shift will be in favour of proprietary apps in a way that people aren't trying now, beggars belief.

unthetical

Can you elaborate please? Apple's own Podcasts app lets you skip the ads with a button. This app does it automatically.

Meh, I'll keep blocking ads everywhere I go and ignoring them otherwise. If they can't be ignored, I just don't consume the content.
Skipping a portion is equal to redacting the part of a landscape image with a billboard in it.
Furthermore, the digital medium is inherently copyable and malleable. If you want to distribute content via this medium, you need to accept that. Sure, make it harder if you please.

> Edit: also, it's super unethical to have a paid app that profits by taking away any scope for content creators to monetize. Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Absurd. Software's whole deal is wrecking people's jobs to save someone else money or make their lives easier. This time it's ad-supported mp3 makers instead of any of the tons and tons of other people who've been tossed around by software. Often this does suck but to single out helping people avoid ads as the one thing you must not charge for is silly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com