Tourism Is Overwhelming the World's Top Destinations - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-12/tourism-is-overwhelming-the-world-s-top-destinations <comment><USER2> Here's a proposal for fixing this. I'll use the national parks as an example.

Yosemite is hugely popular and we need to find some just way to limit the number of people going in. There are three ways to visit Yosemite. PATRON ticket, MERIT ticket, and LOTTERY ticket. All are non-transferable.

The PATRON tickets are auctioned off. This raises a huge amount of money to maintain the parks and make the other tickets completely free.

The MERIT tickets are earned by visiting the less popular parks. You get park- points and eventually you earn enough to earn access to the really cool stuff. And you've also learned to appreciate what you're going to be looking at. If you've climbed some of the less popular climbing spots in the US, it should be easy for you to get access to half dome.

The LOTTERY tickets are free and open to everyone. Enter as often as you want. The lotteries are far enough out that you'll have time to plan around winning.

There are a lot of persnickety details, but I trust the Parks Service to be competent.

The same basic system could be used to fix basically any over-accessed place (famous galleries, Everest, Galapagos, etc). I think that everyone can get behind at least one of these principles (patronage, merit, persistence) and the vast majority of people can get behind the idea of needing the balance all three.

<comment><USER3> The problem with that is that many, if not all, people have the attitude of: that is a publicly funded good, paid for in part with my money, so why shouldn't I have access to it?

What you seem to argue for with this is the privatization of our public spaces. Otherwise how do you ensure access to the publicly funded public good? Or am I way off base with this?

<comment><USER4> At least with parks, they are an area of conservation before they are a tourist attraction. You are paying for this land to be conserved in its natural state. Traffic to the park must therefore be limited to ensure the park is actually preserved and not destroyed by human activity. Visiting the park is a privilege, not a right. The right is that the park exists at all.

<comment><USER5> You need to watch Ken Burns The National Parks: America's Greatest Idea because the parks are to be conserved for future generations in hopes that they can enjoy the public good just as we get to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Returned home recently, saw a local park / nature preserve. There are signs everywhere telling people to stay on the trail. I have never seen so many people disregard them in my life.

When I was a kid, you would go to the educational programs at the park and they teach you about the history of the area, the ecosystem, and the amount of damage that people can do to the ecosystem. Lots of locals will go through this kind of thing. But now there are so many tourists, people stomping through meadows that grow back _very_ slowly. Feeding wildlife. Etc. How do you educate people if they're only visiting for three days out of their entire life?

<comment><USER7> People these days have very little regard for anything outside their headspace. People don't care about others anymore. I kinda feel like schools need to literally start teaching the golden rule - because they're not getting it from mommy and daddy.

<comment><USER8> > People don't care about others anymore

Which was inevitable. Rule enforcement (all kinds, not just the police) works on the premise that most people will be reasonable and follow the rules, or social pressure will handle it.

But then you throw in "no one likes a snitch!", "This rule isn't enforced so why should I follow it?", "They're trying to enforce this rule I don't like, they have better things to do!", and you end up with a perfect storm: We shouldn't care about anything that won't get you in trouble, and you shouldn't get in trouble for anything. Push that to its limit and you get some extreme case of individualism.

You mention schools, but schools are basically no longer allowed to enforce anything else they get sued by some entitled parent.

<comment><USER9> It doesn't help when those rules result in you getting a ticket for going through a red light 0.1s after it turned red.

And not because you were driving, but because you let someone else borrow your car.

Or you end up in some bureaucratic black hole where the law says you can go to either of these 2 agencies for a service, and both agencies (in)directly tell you to go to the other.

<comment><USER8> Yup, that's part of the issue.

Essentially we're in a world where we have rules, but how they are enforced, used, interpreted, is a huge judgement call. I mean, there's always going to need some level of interpretation, because those who author the rules aren't perfect. But the rules are frequently written with a heavy disconnect when it comes to said enforcement. So each and everyone of us is taught to start interpreting them in our own individual ways (and "us" includes the cops). That doesn't scale so hot at several hundreds million people+

<comment><USER9> In the former case, the law was written so it's impossible to fight it (can't even compel the officer that signed it to attend).

And in the latter, the agencies investigate themselves, so unless it's big enough to sue them in court, you won't create change. And they know that: create lots of little problems for the public, and you can get away with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the drivers of tourist congestion is the point-to-point nature of air- travel. In the past, travel used to be something for the elite, not only because it was expensive, but because it would take months of travel to actually reach many of the places. Your travel time would be spread over many intermediate places, all of which are now flown over by planes.

Whilst the volume of tourists is a problem, the behaviour of booking a week (or less!) off work to fly halfway across the world and back is of course going to concentrate tourists around "hot" destinations.

I predict that long, slow, possibly "eco" trips will become fashionable as a new way to signal wealth (much in the way that travel to far-flung corners of the Earth used to).

<comment><USER9> Wait until you see what happens when Americans get 4-6 weeks of holiday per year like the rest of the world

<comment><USER11> Absolutely nothing. They'll either not use it like now, or not be able to afford, like now.

<comment><USER12> > or not be able to afford, like now.

The top 250 million adult Americans are richer than the top 250 million adults in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Africa. So what are you talking about?

The median American is far richer - with a far higher income and disposable income - than the median in Europe, Asia, Latin America or Africa. It's not remotely close in fact.

The median in Europe for example, pegs you down toward an income of just $12,000 and a net worth of only a few thousand dollars.

The US is a country of 330 million people where the median person is wealthier than Germany or Sweden. The US is by a considerable margin the wealthiest per capita large population in world history.

<comment><USER4> In the US four in ten people can't come up with $400. People are paid a lot more than in other countries, but retain hardly any wealth. A large percent of Americans are paycheck to paycheck, meaning once housing/food/healhcare/other essential unmovable costs are paid for, there is no money left to save for anything. America might have the greatest level wealth inequality in the world.

<comment><USER13> > In the US four in ten people can't come up with $400.

I'm pretty sure this is due to some really poor surveys, not the actual state of things. There's a number of debunkings, too. [0]

> America might have the greatest level wealth inequality in the world.

According to Wikipedia, the gini wealth coefficient list (as of 2000) goes Namibia, Zimbabwe, _Denmark_ , the world as a whole, Switzerland, and then the US. [1] Most people would not consider Denmark to be a particularly unequal country. For more recent numbers it seems that Russia, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil and China all have a higher proportion of wealth in the hands of the 1% than the US does. [2] That's as of 2016, and I don't think the US was able to 'catch up' _that_ much in the past 3 years.

0: [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-400-emergency- expense-story-is-wrong)

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth)

2: [https://www.statista.com/chart/6908/the-worlds-most- unequal-...](https://www.statista.com/chart/6908/the-worlds-most-unequal- countries/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It used to be that only westerners had the means to afford traveling across the world but recently, with the rising income in China and India, they can too and, at least in Europe, you can see this.

Although I'm slight worried for the coping ability of highly touristic places, I think it's great that tourism is becoming more accessible to everyone.

There's no reason why visiting famous cultural places should be reserved for the wealthy only. The wealthy have found new places to hide away from the _great unwashed_ anyway.

<comment><USER15> > There's no reason why visiting famous cultural places should be reserved for > the wealthy only.

Maybe it should be reserved for nobody at all? Or some lottery system determining who gets to play tourist? All this jetting about to take the 1000,000th identical picture of some landmark just to say you've been there too is a very high cost to both the destinations and the planet as a whole.

<comment><USER16> I'm so old I can remember when people were encouraged to travel and buy experiences rather than goods, to meet different people and cultures, live outside one's comfort zone, and broaden one's horizons.

Now it is stay home, don't travel, don't eat meat, don't have kids, don't buy experiences or things. Ain't progress wonderful?

<comment><USER15> Not everything scales. If you have 7 billion people that take two two week package holidays per year the planet will collapse. Now, we're not quite there yet but the strain is showing in many places and if we don't stop this then _there won 't be any tourist destinations left to visit_.

Note that the number of people that make meaningful connections with the locals compared to the number of tourists is vanishingly small. You just can't do that when you fly in on Sunday evening and leave again a few days later. All you get to do is to rush from one photogenic site to another, maybe visit a museum and eat at the local versions of the chain stores from somewhere else.

<comment><USER17> Your second paragraph is on point. This is why when I travel I go to a new city for a month or more, and I live in exactly the type of places people are deriding in this thread (AirBnB) to live more like a local, not in a hotel. I am not there to be a tourist, although certainly my visa is a tourism visa and I'm counted in those numbers.

There's a huge difference in ecological impact and cultural impact of package tours where you have ~30 people following one guide with a flag sticking out of their back vs one person spending month+ in a place and minimizing their ecological impact. The one thing I haven't been able to do yet is stop flying, it's required both for work and for pleasure, but I do buy carbon offsets for air travel.

I just don't know how to clearly separate the types of activities I'm talking about without it automatically coming off as elitist when these types of discussions happen... it's not really fair, but the reality is that the Western world had enough various constraints that helped make tourism if not perfectly sustainable, relatively so. With Asia coming up we've added literally billions of potential new tourists to the pot and that's just not scalable. It's even very obvious to me, as I try to visit places which are not tourist destinations... and I visit off-season. I don't really care for tourism itself, I want to meet people and discover food. I go to these places to find not English dual-language, but Mandarin Chinese...

<comment><USER4> The impact can be more subtle. Personally I'm more worried about the individuals who don't know anything about conservation going into these areas. Usually the tour groups follow a set route, limiting their impact. The grand canyon likely prefers you stay in the disneyland of the south rim where there are park rangers, trashcans, bathrooms, shuttles, and roads, rather than hike offtrail in the canyon and damage the more pristine ecology found there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think it's not just tourism, it's traveling in general. We need to stop taking the car or the plane like it's nothing for the environment, and taxes are the only way, we can't rely on people's common sense.

A single roundtrip from New York to Los Angeles a year offsets the combined effort of going vegetarian and recycling for example - [https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=New%20York&fromCode=JFK&toC...](https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=New%20York&fromCode=JFK&toCity=Los%20Angeles&toCode=LAX&roundtrip=true&typeofseat=3)

I've gone to many of those places: The Egypt Pyramids, Paris, London, Austria, Amsterdam, Crete, Cuba, Japan. After a while it becomes all the same, it all feels like a tourist trap everywhere you go, most likely because it is.

Seeing natural wonders like the canary islands, it's probably still worth it, but visiting man-made cities with their tourist trap monuments? No thank you.

<comment><USER19> IMO this is an elitist point of view. Taxing will only serve to make travel a luxury for the elite, as it once was.

The only reason tourism has increased so much is because it's become affordable to the middle class.

The economy will adapt. There will be more tourist destinations to cancel out the increased crowds, with time.

Flying is a great way to travel in an environmentally friendly way. It's far less wasteful per mile than driving.

<comment><USER20> Airplanes produce more greenhouse gas emissions per km than other travel methods. Over a nominal 1100 km, a generic passenger liner will produce 0.17 metric ton, whilst trains contribute a quarter to less than a tenth that, and coach buses a fifth. The same distance would be like driving a petrol car averaging about 36 US mpg or 6.5 L/100 km -- but your family of 4, let's say, would split that emissions impact in the car, where in the airplane it'd be 4x.

The notion that jetsetting should be a right of the masses is a myth built on future generations paying for the damage mass flying does today. Thinking ubiquitous travel should be cheap and trivially available may actually be the elitist view, as the elite or wealthy will be the only ones able to protect their way of life as the natural environment changes and cities become more difficult to live or work in.

Edit: I used [https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx), who describe their methodology here: [https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculatorfaqs.html](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculatorfaqs.html)

<comment><USER21> I think your math is off - planes are usually loaded with people and per person mile far better than a mere roadtrip. You should divide the airplane emissions by at least 70. Fluid friction vs rolling helps a lot.

While trains and fully loaded buses may be superior it is still far from the worst evil for long distances.

<comment><USER20> You can have a look at the calculations if you'd like. There's a deceptively high amount of emissions with jet kerosene, even with the planes loaded up.

[https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In one of David Foster Wallace's essays[0] I read when I was younger he said:

> To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, > ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have, disappointed in a way > you can never admit. It is to spoil, by way of sheer ontology, the very > unspoiledness you are there to experience, It is to impose yourself on > places that in all non-economic ways would be better, realer, without you. > It is, in lines and gridlock and transaction after transaction, to confront > a dimension of yourself that is as inescapable as it is painful: As a > tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an > insect on a dead thing.

That has always stuck with me and made me realize the delicate and potentially destructive nature of being a tourist.

[0] [https://harpers.org/wp- content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazi...](https://harpers.org/wp- content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazine-1996-01-0007859.pdf)

Edit: I misremembered which essay this quote was from. It is actually in a footnote on page 3 of this one [http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf](http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf)

Leaving the original link up because it is still a great read about some of the potential horrors of mass tourism.

<comment><USER23> I think that is a very negative notion. It completely omits the part where people meet each other, talk and learn. It's probably difficult to measure but I bet that tourism is making the world a more peaceful place.

<comment><USER24> I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment and I'd like to expand on it.

I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism.

I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated.

Both legally and practically speaking there are ample reasons both to limit tourism and to limit immigration in reasonable, fair, and thoughtful ways. Some resources are more limited than others. The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity.

Having an intelligent conversation about the practical limits of tourism and immigration is important and welcome. Demonizing those who want to experience different cultures, different climates, and different geography is completely unhelpful.

I say this as someone who _hates_ to travel and who cannot stand going to a tourist destination that's overflowing with people.

But I refuse to demonize people that like or tolerate that kind of experience the same way I refuse to demonize people who are seeking a better life for themselves more permanently.

<comment> core-questions > it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of > people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental > mechanism

If my ancestors built a place, and raised their families there to continue taking care of it for generations, in what sense does it not belong to me and my extended family? Nothing about that process was "accidental", though it may have some factor of "randomness" about it depending on your personal epistemology.

> I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the > argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and > awful places are an infestation to be eliminated.

You've skipped a thousand steps. When the caretakers of a place welcome people in, and then discover they pose a problem, it's not unreasonable for them to wish to mitigate the issue. If this means that an unlimited number of refugees or immigrants cannot be accepted because maintaining the same standard of living would be impossible, it is not unreasonable to refuse new entrants. By no means are we beholden to support every other human being, even if we empathize for their plight.

> The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place > or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them > some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity.

It's not moral superiority; it's moral duty, to understand and uphold the works of the past that have lead to greatness. Failure to do so could mean seeing beautiful things destroyed, replaced by the same chaos and fear that people are already fleeing.

> I say this as someone who hates to travel

Well, maybe if you saw more of the world, and saw what people are trying to protect (e.g. in Europe), and got a greater sense of what it means to be a people (as opposed to the atomized, decultured masses in North America)... maybe you might understand why someone would seek to preserve something.

It makes sense that you don't care about preserving your local strip mall / walmart / home depot. It's quite another thing to care about preserving Notre Dame and such.

<comment><USER25> You do not get Paris or Amsterdam or Vienna from a static set of families iterating in isolation over thousands of years. These are global cities, deeply integrated with and shaped by trade, migration and conquest. It's not Amish country or quiet little fishing villages that are attracting all these tourists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Local people really need to price out a lot of the tourists. You really need to implement a high tax/price, this would cut down on the tourists and allow locals to reap more benefits.

I don't know if it is still like this, but when I was in Cinque Terra in the Italian Riviera, there was a lot that seem to be structured into the place to have tourism, but not let it overwhelm the place.

Building development was strictly controlled, so the hotel/hostel we stayed at was pretty simple and converted apartment building.

There wasn't a ton to do in the towns, like jet skiiing or parasailing, so the appeal of the place didn't feel like a resort place. It really felt like people mainly made wine there with a few converted buildings that tourists stayed at.

For me, the main draw of the place aside from the natural beauty was the lack of things that seem to cater to tourists.

The second night I was there, we ran into a post-wedding party with locals at a bar who outnumbered the tourists probably 25-1.

And that felt normal. Like, we were there seeing how these people lived and just got to enjoy the lifestyle and beauty for a few days.

Contrast this to Venice, which was almost 100% tourism to me. It felt like a museum. Locals seemed almost out of place. While the buildings weren't new, everything in the town seemed to revolv around selling stuff to tourists.

<comment><USER27> Interesting take! A couple thoughts: -Wouldn't a high tax/price on tourism have a drastic negative effect on the local economy? Your example of Venice - if you price out the majority of tourists, I would think the Venice economy would have to do a major pivot, something that would likely take some time and effort. -High tax/price on tourism is only pricing out the tourists that can't afford the tax. I agree it's one of the easier solutions to implement, but something doesn't feel right about tourist destinations becoming destinations only for those rich enough to afford the tax. In addition, I don't necessarily believe there is a correlation between wealth and environmentally friendly tourist behavior. In other words, are wealthier tourists really that more likely to treat the tourist destination in a more positive way than lower/middle class tourists?

<comment><USER26> For me, Venice is too far gone to change without significant pain to the local economy.

The point of pricing isn't to completely eliminate tourism, it's to lower it.

The goal is to find a price point that cuts down, but doesn't eliminate tourism.

And while it would attract a higher wealth tourist, you can easily adjust the system to a lottery type where you have a certain percent of people who just buy access and others who won a lottery.

They do this out west for river access during the summer. They don't want a whole bunch of people river rafting and destroying the river, so they have a lottery that you have to buy a ticket for. You lose the money if you don't win a license. This creates revenue without increasing the number of tourists. And it also creates a system where people who really want to go there, will buy a ticket without a guarantee of a spot. And,when they do go, they tend to be much better quality tourists since.

I know people who have been buying tickets for almost a decade and haven't gotten a spot.

Something like this is very effective at keeping up revenue and decreasing the number of tourists.

<comment><USER9> That solution could be rephrased as:

"Make poor people poorer".

The price increases won't impact the wealthy, even if they did have to reduce their travel by 10-20%. But it will impact those that save (or pay-off) for years for their dream trip or honeymoon trip.

My preferred approach would be more progressive than regressive: just make rich people poorer through income/capital/dividend taxes.

<comment><USER26> If you are poor, should you really be going to Venice?

A reasonably priced lottery would give middle income people access and an even playing field against wealthy people.

This system, combined with a limit on tourist infrastructure would cut down on excessive visitors and make it sustainable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I lived in Asia for nearly four years. Since 2015 and came back home a few months ago.

It was surreal to see the level of tourism increase between my favorite places. And I am convinced this is a bad thing because it steals the soul of the said environment.

People become more comfortable with greed. I was in Cambodia in late 2015,and was quite happy with pricing of things, even if often charged a premium. Then, I returned earlier this year for a holiday and quickly learned that prices have soared, and sellers don't care if you put your fruit and vegetables back. This was a huge warning for me personally.

In short, a lot of these places are becoming the exact same thing anywhere you go. An opportunity to grab money from foreigners, whilst putting culture as the very last thing for others to see and experience.

Anyway, I am probably just ranting. I do love Asia but the effects of mass tourism are very real.

<comment><USER29> Is it really greed? Sounds more like market pricing at work to me. The people who live there deserve a good living too, right? So long as their country is being flooded by tourists anyway they might as start enjoying a somewhat comparable standard of living.

Prices are soaring because tourism is soaring. Don't be mad at the people responding rationally to market forces and enjoying a higher standard of living; be mad at the tourists. And as someone who isn't from there and only lived there for a few years, you have more in common with the tourists than the locals.

<comment><USER28> Actually, I have more "foreign local" friends than people I know in my country of birth. It wasn't a choice per se, but it just so happened that I found a lot of interesting people to connect with.

I understand your point, it's valid. But I will add that local markets, in Cambodia for example, will sit on mangoes and papaya until they rot, and _still_ charge a premium despite the product being borderline inedible.

Oh, and I am very well aware of local prices. If you take a local with you to theater or even grocery shopping, you'll astound yourself at the "premium" that you get charged as a foreigner.

<comment><USER29> Food waste is hardly unique to developing countries though! Nearly half of all food that's produced in developed nations ends up not being eaten; it's thrown out at various points in the pipeline. From a food waste criterion, the developing world is actually much better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Just travel off-season. I went to Venezia, Firenze and Milano last year in October. Barely saw any more people than I would see anywhere else in the off peak of, say, Dublin. Smelt nice, had no problem with crowds, weather was gorgeous.

I can travel off season because I don't have children, and I can take time off at any point in time during the year. The problem of congestion really is for people with families or who don't can't take time off outside "summer" months.

<comment><USER31> I am going to have schoolchildren soon. Looks like the whole world doubles/triples the prices for these shorts periods when German schoolchildren have vacation. Forget cheap flights, cheap hotels, off-season empty famous places. My colleague was repeating f-words recently, because due to school he can go home to Philippines only during rain season. It's time to look for some new exotic, unknown for tourists destinations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> God forbid the global middle class can experience other cultures and get outside of their own bubble.

<comment><USER33> Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. I hate to bash liberals, because I usually identify as one, but this is definitely one of those places where it seems they can't make up their minds. They bash middle-class Americans for not being well-traveled enough, for not "thinking globally", for being too ignorant of cultures outside the US, etc. And now they're bashing middle-class Americans for touring overseas too much. WTF?

<comment><USER34> Because going to a foreign country and staying in an English speaking hotel between trips to landmarks and Burger King (but in Spain!!!) is not experiencing other cultures.

You're the "Vince Vega" tourist who visits France and eats fucking McDonalds. You've completely missed the point of visiting another place, you've just gone to the place where America has exported its culture into another area, with all the grace and sensitivity of a hiker taking a dump on a birds nest.

<comment><USER35> While I find your comment quite rude, I remember having a "What the fuck!" moment when I saw the huge McDonalds on Champs-Elysees.

<comment><USER34> Sorry, I get punchy when people deliberately misconstrue what other people are saying to further their own biases. It's a particular trigger for me.

<comment><USER33> Well you should be pissed at yourself then, because I didn't misconstrue anything, yet you completely misconstrued what I wrote, and made ridiculous and untrue assumptions about me. Maybe you should stop projecting and try working on your own issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The sooner that global oil crisis happens the better. Yes, it will cause a terrible economic disaster.

But at the same time it will have positive effects for both global warming and for the fragile eco-systems and heritage sites of the world.

<comment><USER36> Unfortunately there is way too much oil known today. Much of it will have to stay underground, if the worst climate catastrophes are to be averted.

<comment><USER37> On the other hand, it's getting more and more expensive. The amount of cheap oil still on the ground isn't nearly as large as the amount of oil.

Anyway, the main concern for climate change is coal. Not only it pollutes more, but there is much more of it on the ground than oil and gas. Luckily, solar is successfully competing with it.

<comment><USER38> Wouldn't that be priced into futures contracts? Even with all the problems with Iran, the price of oil is really low in a historical context.

<comment><USER37> Price is not a clear signal as you seem to be expecting. Remember, it's only a scalar that has to satisfy all of the constraints every person thinks is important.

Oil in particular seems to be unable to stay at very high prices. Historically we just get a recession and it goes down again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The confluence of lower travel costs, higher individual wealth and population growth is proving also an incredible stress on the cultures and uniqueness of global landmark travel locations. The attraction of tourists encourages the development of hotels over local housing, for real estate companies to put existing apartments on Airbnb instead of renting them, attracts chain entertainment companies who buy out established local restaurants/bars/spaces.

Pair this with the continuing trend of residential population density increase metropolitan areas. As travel becomes cheaper and Internet-enabled connectivity improves, multinational firms expand into more and more regional hot spots, bringing external wealth, increasing the prices on goods and housing in locations where tourism is already decreasing the availability of housing for local / long-term residents.

As these two effects collide, real estate prices climb, and that spike must be attractive to speculative investors -- as in SF, NYC, London, these cities see purchase prices climb faster than income increases. Then because the investment needs to be offset while the value rises, those houses / apartments are also put up for short-term rental or corporate lease.

The result is that the people who made up the city and made it run get pushed out, that it's culture is washed away. Dublin, Lisbon, Berlin, Munich, Amsterdam, Prague all demonstrate this process, and it's likely to continue unless the mass tourism floods can be reversed, and pressures to move into the middle of these cities is mitigated.

I'm actually really excited about burgeoning air taxis, along with things like level 4/5 microbus-augmented public transport, for reducing the pressure of relocating to cities themselves. But travel may also need to get more expensive again -- we don't yet require flights to be offset for their impact on the environment, let alone their impact on local life, and both of those avenues may need to be reviewed.

<comment><USER39> > an incredible stress on the cultures and uniqueness

Are there still local cultures anywhere in the world? The west, and a lot of asia is more or less similar now, people are accepting of each other's habits and won't make a fuss if you break whatever local customs are left. I think local cultures were a thing of tourism ~40 years ago, people now glorify tiny differences.

<comment><USER20> > Are there still local cultures anywhere in the world?

There are, yeah. Even city to city in sub-regions of different countries.

> people are accepting of each other's habits and won't make a fuss if you > break whatever local customs are left.

This is different from cultures not existing; tolerance != homogeneity.

<comment><USER39> > There are, yeah. Even city to city in sub-regions of different countries.

Maybe in asia, where there are still less developed areas. In europe, which is by far the biggest tourist destinations i don't think there is true local culture to discover. There is an adulteratered "culture" doped with conservatives, maintained mainly because of tourism in some places.

<comment><USER20> > In europe, which is by far the biggest tourist destinations i don't think > there is true local culture to discover.

I live in Europe and am happy to report that there are indeed differentiated cultures, even city to city in many areas.

> There is an adulteratered "culture" doped with conservatives, maintained > mainly because of tourism in some places.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

<comment><USER39> > am happy to report that there are indeed differentiated cultures, even city > to city in many areas.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences)

> I don't understand what you're saying here.

Sorry i mean fake, non-organic "culture" and "traditions" that have only been preserved because tourists like them

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I prefer nature hikes in nearby regions to taking a plane to see X thing that you MUST see. I drive an efficient vehicle, it costs me nothing to get on the trail, and most trails just have friendly hikers, not tourists. This is a far more efficient leisure choice than heading to Paris or Rome and joining the throngs.

<comment><USER11> QUIET YOU.

Hiking is the last bastion. However I'm fairly confident that really won't ever change, at least once you get past the 2 mile marker. Tourists fade away beyond that.

<comment><USER41> I don't buy that. The percentage of people who are willing to hike > 2mi should be fairly static between tourists and non-tourists, no?

I know personally, I'll take a trip down to the Bruce Peninsula for a day hike. (I also personally wouldn't fly somewhere JUST for a hike, but that's only because of closer and more easily accessible hiking trails.)

<comment><USER11> The massive influx of tourism that people are complaining about, are absolutely NOT doing extended day hikes. People are being carted in by chartered buses and tour guides. There is no way you're seeing these families, and selfie teens 5,10,15 miles out there. Which is why I do it. Silence.

<comment><USER42> Unfortunately, this is not so. The John Muir Trail has seen extremely rapid growth [1] in the number of thru-hikers (many of whom are first-time backpackers). It's the same story for other popular "named" trails that become bucket-list items. There is a cap on the number of permits, but people skirt around those restrictions.

Maybe the solution is to develop additional long-distance hiking networks and increase the area of protected land in the US, realizing that the cost-benefit ratio of doing so is outrageously high.

[1] [https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/images/jmtgraph_2.png](https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/images/jmtgraph_2.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> As standard of living rises, number of people able to afford leisure and travel increases. Yet the number of destinations is fairly fixed (the Earth isn't getting any bigger). So every place gets crowded.

Its not tourism; its growing affluence and diminishing 'touristy' places. No longer as easy to find an ancient monastery to tour, when they've installed AC and rebuilt with electric lights and indoor plumbing.

<comment><USER39> > diminishing 'touristy' places

It doesnt matter. Tourists keep flocking in ridiculous amounts to tiny islands for their instagram selfies. Everyone says they want a "unique" experience, but in reality they don't. There are countries like greece where "unique" experiences untouched by repackaging/commercialization dont exist for decades- everything has been touristified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I don't see a problem here (other than the carbon emissions part). If you don't want crowds, don't go to Venice in July, don't go to Kyoto in the spring, and don't go to Munich during Oktoberfest. If you have school aged kids, then I don't really have sympathy for you, and I won't have sympathy for myself either when I have kids. Its one of those things you have to deal with as a parent.

People who want an actually unique experience will seek those out and find it. This year I went to a European country that exactly none of my family or friends could point to on a map, and it was amazing. I even went about a month before their tourist season started. If you find yourself complaining about crowds at tourist places, maybe you need to examine what it is that you wanted out of the trip.

</comment><comment><USER45> If people didn't want to visit iconic places they wouldn't be iconic. If you ever went to China, in most cities, not just the most popular ones, if you go to city center where people are used to spend free time, you will find yourself in a crowd bigger than Venice when a couple of cruise ships are docked for a day.

Industry or gov shouldn't regulate to only serve those who are able to pay premium. There's nothing wrong with visiting that same Venice while living in a nearby city. Just build the infrastructure to accommodate more people and warn everyone that you should brace yourself to walk in the crowd or postpone your visit until off-season (or in case of Venice, just walk it in the early morning).

</comment><comment><USER46> This article saddens me in the same way that my heart aches after learning about a new horror of climate change. The problem is large in scale - a true tragedy of the commons - and impacts those of us who travel on a personal level. As always, the poor are most impacted.

With this said, I still find it easy even in the globe's most popular cities, to escape the crowds and find hidden treasures by wandering sans guidebook/blog/etc. Making an extensive plan before traveling will almost by definition ensure your path crosses with a vast majority of other travelers.

<comment><USER47> The article explicitly recommends avoiding the commons problem via a tax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > The world is big, but it isn't big enough to be everyone's personal > playground.

Sure but people still want to leave. They don't seem to particularly enjoy their local enclaves anywhere (bowling alone etc). Online and offline escapism is on a steady rise this decade (e.g. digital nomads) so how is that going to be handled? Congestion pricing can do so much, there will always be cheaper alternative destinations. In fact younger people may not even want to have a permanent base anymore, so everyone will be a tourist, and everywhere will be a destination.

<comment><USER20> Each location will have to determine when it's seen enough erosion, but places that don't will end up like Venice, or some of the southern North American hotspots for American tourists that only exist now to serve a Disney-like vacation experience.

Cheap globetrotting was never a reality for anyone but the wealthy until the middle of last century. As we're discovering for many other things, being able to make it a reality for the middle classes is something we should have perhaps acknowledged but not acted upon.

<comment><USER39> > Each location will have to determine when it's seen enough erosion

That assumes that there are people who care. But if globetrotting becomes the dominant way to live for the middle class, very few people will care. Most people are flocking in major metropolises to work and live in tiny apartments. That trend has not changed, even with technology making it easier to work remotely. This centralization means that in the future anything outside rich megacities will be a tourist destination - and just that.

We already see that happening in the south of europe, which is becoming a convenient cheap tourist destination while the brain drain to the north continues.

<comment><USER33> >We already see that happening in the south of europe, which is becoming a convenient cheap tourist destination while the brain drain to the north continues.

There's really nothing stopping places like that from changing themselves to make themselves more attractive to industry and business to stop the brain drain. The people are leaving because those places haven't bothered making themselves nice places to stay and live and work in high-paying professions.

<comment><USER39> > really nothing stopping places like that from changing themselves to make > themselves

you'd think, but places dont change themselves - people change them. And when these people have left, it would take exceptional circumstances to reverse the trend.

<comment><USER33> Only some people have left, because they're tired of the people still there not improving things. The people who are left still have it in their power to improve things, but generally don't, so they only have themselves to blame for the brain drain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Just like python eh

<comment><USER49> Clearly, the Hacker News gestalt is providing us a solution here; set Python on the tourists. "Sir, in order to visit the Eiffel Tower today, I'm going to need you to tell me what this Python code does...."

<comment><USER47> Given some of the code I've had to spelunking this may be an unsolvable problem.

The Eiffel Tower was built as a tourist destination so they'd make the problem easy, but this might be good for Machu Picchu

Actually for the latter it could be a knowledge of the history quiz, or a leave-no-trace quiz...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Tourism is often times an economic crutch to areas that countries can't grow out of. Some of the most iconic vacation destinations in the world like Bali and the Bahamas have some of the worst poverty inland where tourists don't like to venture. Talent ends up being used to help foreigners rather than the local people. Why would you study hard to be a doctor in your impoverished hometown when you can make more money as a bartender at a resort?

</comment><comment><USER51> Tourism is a scam. Travel is a scam unless you're doing actual business or have someone to visit. I sit at home and drink coffee and read the newspaper.

</comment><comment><USER52> It's true that travel should not be reserved for the wealthy. At the same time however travel is no different to most other non-essential commodities and should be similarly allocated via the price mechanism. Given that the supply of desirable destinations is fixed and demand is rising it stands to reason these destinations cannot be accessible to everyone.

As the article touches upon, each additional tourist presents an increase in the external costs they impose on everyone else. These costs may manifest in price increases (more expensive accommodation) or in other ways (longer queues, disruptions to locals, etc). Taxes are very much needed so that tourists bare the true cost of their presence. This will achieve the desired outcome of reducing tourist numbers by pricing some people out and making alternative destinations more appealing relative to their price.

Tourism is a luxury and there is no serious case to be made that cities should have to effectively subsidise the demand of travellers so that everyone can see the world.

<comment><USER7> Definitely agree. I don't have a chance in hell of making it to Everest, not because I wouldn't want to, but I can't afford it. But if I could afford it, as much as I hear the place is already pretty much ruined (reports of garbage, dead bodies everywhere)- if everyday people like me started heading there, it would be obliterated. Now I'm not saying all travel should be reserved for the wealthy, but it makes sense that we have different levels of cost for different places. I've had two people on my team visit Reykjavik recently. And I'm just thinking - how on earth did people find out about these places. (short answer the internet ruiner of all places nice)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Take the tourist's dollars (yuan / whatever) - build schools, hospitals, infrastructure and plan to treble your tourism in 20 years - but to overwhelm that with non-tourism industries like solar cell production or battery factories. Build sewage treatment plants, build roads for electric public transport buses. Build 5 G cell towers.

This is not a disaster - this is bootstrapping.

</comment><comment><USER54> I read this in the 90's and it changed entirely how I traveled and spoke about tourism. Maybe it is useful here: "We drove 22 miles into the country around Farmington. There were meadows and apple orchards. White fences trailed through the rolling fields. Soon the sign started appearing. THE MOST PHOTOGRAPHED BARN IN AMERICA. We counted five signs before we reached the site. There were 40 cars and a tour bus in the makeshift lot. We walked along a cowpath to the slightly elevated spot set aside for viewing and photographing. All the people had cameras; some had tripods, telephoto lenses, filter kits. A man in a booth sold postcards and slides -- pictures of the barn taken from the elevated spot. We stood near a grove of trees and watched the photographers. Murray maintained a prolonged silence, occasionally scrawling some notes in a little book.

"No one sees the barn," he said finally.

A long silence followed.

"Once you've seen the signs about the barn, it becomes impossible to see the barn."

He fell silent once more. People with cameras left the elevated site, replaced by others.

We're not here to capture an image, we're here to maintain one. Every photograph reinforces the aura. Can you feel it, Jack? An accumulation of nameless energies."

There was an extended silence. The man in the booth sold postcards and slides.

"Being here is a kind of spiritual surrender. We see only what the others see. The thousands who were here in the past, those who will come in the future. We've agreed to be part of a collective perception. It literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism."

Another silence ensued.

"They are taking pictures of taking pictures," he said."

― Don DeLillo, White Noise

</comment><comment><USER21> The whole notion strikes me as self-defeating xenophobia - pardon the redundancy (it is the ideology of losers - literally).

The world not having enoug space to be a playground is downright absurd.

If they didn't have the tourists they would be complaining even more about lacking an economy and blaming them for not visiting.

</comment><comment><USER55> This article only focuses on a few hot tourist destinations, but it then tries to generalize that to _the entire world_ , which is mostly _not_ one giant tourist destination. "The World" is not "eaten" just because Mount Everest is crowded. Tourism is mostly just eating Tourism.

On the other hand, tourism accounts for 8% of greenhouse gas emissions. As rates of tourism increase, so will a negative effect on the global environment. And an increase in poorly implemented eco-tourism is hurting vulnerable environments without strong economies to protect them; some examples being the Galapagos and Madagascar. Those parts of the world definitely _are_ being eaten by Tourism, and we should focus more on sustainable tourism to prevent further damage.

</comment><comment><USER56> One of the big interesting thing this article completely forgets is that with the rise of the social-media-driven bucket lists, tourists, especially the ones from far away, tend to congregate in a few places, in countries where there is a million things to see.

This is especially obvious in France where American tourists only go to Paris and Nice (and a few other places in the south), leaving the rest of the country for us and our Dutch, British and German neighbors ;-)

<comment><USER57> I agree. I recently visited Italy and was planning on visiting several of the major cities. I went to Florence for a day and it was such a shit show that I gave up on the larger cities entirely (think thousands and thousands of people crammed around notable sights all trying to get that perfect shot for IG).

Instead, I spent most of my time in the countryside. It was absolutely beautiful and I rarely saw another foreigner.

<comment><USER58> The countryside in Italy doesn't necessarily mean you're away from tourists, see the Dutch on Lago di Garda or the Germans in South Tyrol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> When did tourism become so huge? I honestly don't remember people talking about their trips and vacations much growing up, but I felt a sharp rise with the rise of social media. I knew of very few people who routinely went on crazy vacations and talked about it, now it seems like they are everywhere. Is it because of social status and the selfie zombie? I even had a girl refuse to talk to me because I didn't go on these elaborate vacation trips. (I'm sorry but I grew up on handmedowns and not having enough food was a thing. I'm not going to spend a few thousand on a field trip when my parents back home are doing everything they can to save a few dollars).

I remember going to national parks growing up and they were never that crowded. I feel like it's all changed. And now instead of people who go to these places to actually see and experience the place, they go there for all the wrong reasons.

<comment><USER60> [https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/](https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/)

National park admissions are public records. There seems to less attendance now than in the 90s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I imagine Instagram in particular has really changed the destinations that people choose to go to over the last few years. I'd be curious if the problem is more concentrated at the top e.g. the most "Instagrammable" destinations have become ever more crowded and are attracting a larger share of leisure $.

</comment><comment><USER62> This is a good sign of travel and leisure being affordable for an increasing percentage of the global population. Regrettable for current tourist destinations that aren't set up for the scale, but we should be happy that so many people from so many places are free to travel

</comment><comment><USER63> Well, the congestion tax is not the only way! The market will consolidate on its own. Remember, tourism is part of every nation's economy, and adding more tax might shift tourists to other places. If the demand is increasing without any change to supply (number of flights, rental options, etc.), then the prices will increase for sure. I believe technology has made it easy to access than solved the supply problem. There is no need to introduce a separate tax. Looks more propaganda to slow down the tourism industry. If a place is super crowded, then you will see a decline in the number of visitors because it kills the ambiance (or prices might shoot up).

</comment><comment><USER64> Tourism usually involves seeing the same things everybody else has seen, and taking a picture to tick a box.

I think it's actually more novel nowadays to develop a really intimate knowledge of your home city/town/place and be content with that.

</comment><comment><USER65> This is how a world where everyone is becoming middle class looks. It will chafe here and there, but it's basically a wonderful thing that poverty is disappearing.

And if you think tourist spots are crowded now, wait until the UBI society arrives :)

</comment><comment><USER66> Articles About The Wrong Kind Of Tourists Are Overwhelming The Hacker News Front Page.

</comment><comment><USER67> Python is Eating the World

Tourism is Eating the World

Software is Eating the World

[...] is Eating the World

I guess there will be nothing left to eat soon.

<comment><USER68> We still have the billionaires

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> We need to start pricing tourism. For example, why should a Chinese citizen visiting Yosemite only pay the same as an American citizen who is paying a lifetime of taxes to run and protect the park? The tourists use the entire infrastructure and economy to their benefit without paying the historical price that citizens have paid. They simply tap into the current prices.

We can charge for tourism in a few ways:

1\. price discrimination at individual locations based on passport. This would be difficult to implement and unpopular.

2\. Charge really high prices for tourist visas that represent the true value of the what the tourists is gaining access to.

3\. UBI for citizens

<comment><USER70> Your comment is making it seem like tourists are costing the country money while the opposite is true. Tourists buy a non trivial amount of USD which they end up spending inside the country.

<comment><USER69> I agree. They do pay for things while they are here. But they are not paying for everything they are getting. For example, have they paid for all the infrastructure they are using? Or for the 100 years of parks conservation? Or the US system of law and order? They are not paying the full price.

<comment><USER70> >have they paid for all the infrastructure they are using?

They use it for a couple of days compared to lifetime use by the citizens.

Your comment sounds so hateful and privileged. It almost sounds like "we made all this infrastructure, parks, law and order for you. You need to pay fairly for the honor and privilege to use it".

In India, public attractions charge higher to foreigners but the stated reason is purchase power parity. Indians on average make like $2k annually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Dunno how it looks in US but in Europe traveling became unbelievably cheap. I live in Poland, we have shit earnings and yet I don't think I that know many people that are NOT traveling heavily because it's super easy to find cheap flights and cheap Arbnb everywhere, even some exitic places like Cambodia. I was in Rome couple days with my girlfriend in March this year, I don't think I paid more than 100€ for flight and housing combined for 2 people.

</comment><comment><USER72> India is biggest Tourism Attraction Arrivals in India increased to 721015 in June from 610590 in May of 2019. Tourist Arrivals in India averaged 486693.55 from 2000 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 1191147 in December of 2018 and a record low of 129286 in May of 2001.

Neetu Singh IAS

</comment><comment><USER73> Just limit tourist visas to a level that's comfortable? It just becomes a simple wait if you want to see a place. No different to waiting in a queue to go inside any attraction. And maybe invest tourism dollars to conservation of these places/landmarks?

</comment><comment><USER74> I feel like I missed the boat on seeing world before tourism overran everything. Bummer.

</comment><comment><USER75> I think the way to solve it (it's contributing to climate chaos) is to make local travel, as inside the state, something cool, something only those with real class do

Let the unwashed yokels and barbarians keep flying. They'll come around soon enough

</comment><comment><USER76> Tourism can be properly regulated but people don't want to miss out on even a couple dollars. Cheaper countries, like Thailand, have to be priced accordingly. Compare Kauai with Phuket.

</comment><comment><USER77> Isn't this the true goal of globalism, each microcosm has to hyperfocus its resources and how they can be sold in the best way.

</comment><comment><USER78> I got slated not long ago for saying that mass tourism has ruined travel for me. Seems it's ruined it for other people also.

</comment><comment><USER79> Reminds me of this 1958 essay by Hans Magnus Enzensberger called A Theory Of Tourism - (PDF, 2MB) [https://elearning.uniroma1.it/pluginfile.php/541204/mod_foru...](https://elearning.uniroma1.it/pluginfile.php/541204/mod_forum/attachment/106757/hans- magnus-enzensberger%20copy.pdf) I think it's overly negative, and when, in the second half, it started to link tourism to the Holocaust it lost me. But there are some excellent points in the first half about the logical progression of tourism, which I found fascinating and prescient given the date it was written.

</comment><comment><USER80> Overpopulation is overwhelming the world.

</comment><comment><USER81> What part of massive floods of plane and bus loads of Chinese "tourists" is going to lead to the naive notion that "people meet each other, talk and learn"? I am not asking this condescendingly, but have you at all traveled anywhere? How many times did you meet and talk and learn from a Chinese/mass tour group? THAT is unfortunately the future, NOT some fantastical notion of cultural interchange talking to a local Parisian in a corner cafe. There will soon not even be any actual Native French people in Paris at the rate things are going, and that's just one of the pernicious and dark aspects of this globalism that is utterly destroying the planet and humanity.

Sadly, it seems you suffer from the common mentality that seems rather pervasive among European people's overall, a sense of a kind of self-righteous ignorance, of presuming an equality mirrored on one's own culture, values, ideals, nature, and character; essentially the manifestation of the delusional belief that "we are all the same" and that muddling and mixing falsely equates to diversity.

Reality simply is that not all humans share the characteristics or values and ideals that have emerged from the rotten and pernicious western experience of abundance combined with various other cultural and traditional characteristics. No, the combined 3 BILLION people of India and China are not going to "meet each other, talk and learn" as they swarm and swamp Europe and the USA's measly combined <1 billion population, nor will the 4.5 Billion Africans somehow just want to talk and learn and meet in 2100 when the combined crush of humanity starts really gripping.

We are seeing these articles just now, as a relatively small subset of each of those populations has any means whatsoever to travel and become tourists, just wait until the exponentially rising numbers of them have the means to travel to swamp Europe and the USA, when citizens won't even have the ability to see their own cultural sites or artifacts in anything like peace or focus as billions of "tourists" flood into the relatively few places of interest.

no, this is just the beginning of far greater consequences of ill guided, self-righteous tyranny that is always common to the self-appointed authoritarian ruling class. This is the future you and we have condemned our children to, being overrun and dissociated with our own cultural heritage out of misguided delusional co-dependent and enabling policies of overpopulation of the planet.

<comment><USER82> > _What part of massive floods of plane and bus loads of Chinese "tourists" is > going to lead to the naive notion that "people meet each other, talk and > learn"? I am not asking this condescendingly, but have you at all traveled > anywhere? How many times did you meet and talk and learn from a Chinese/mass > tour group?_

Not sure why you'd single out the Chinese tourists.

Most American/English/German/Australian/Russian etc tourists are just as ghastly and vacuous - to the point of there being several idioms and cultural artifacts in Europe about that...

<comment><USER83> It's all the shoving, mostly, for me. Their group leader banners/umbrellas are a sight to be feared and avoided. Not behavior I see from others, (relatively) few of whom form so many large travel groups of that sort anyway.</comment></comment></comment>


Overcast – A powerful yet simple iPhone podcast player - <AUTHOR> https://overcast.fm/ <comment><USER2> Managing your podcasts can be a complicated thing.

Shows and episodes can exist in different states and use cases. Do I listen to every episode of this show? Most episodes? Just dip in and out every once in a while? How can a UI accommodate this?

Do I download? Stream? Per episode? Per show? Sometimes one, sometimes the other? What about tools to manage my download queue? Maybe I have lots of bandwidth at the office, but I have 1mpbs at home. I've yet use a podcast app (I think I've used them all) that has a playlist setting to exclude certain shows. I've been unable to to create a playlist that has the "All Shows" feed from popular networks, doesn't make other playlists (based on episode state) unmaintainable.

Settings at the global level. Settings at the playlist level. Settings at the show level. Settings at the current playing episode level...

Downcast, with it's Windows-like feature set and UI, has given me the most power. I have complaints with it (Bloated UI; I want PocketCasts's playback speed slider and "skip first X seconds" feature), but every other app seems to go in the "less is more... until it's not enough and I go back to downcast" direction.

Overcast has some smart features. (What about an "alert me of any appearance of my favorite guest, whatever the show" feature)? I hope it convinces people that there is still room to grow.

<comment><USER3> I've also found that Downcast has given me the most control over my podcasts.

One thing I haven't found yet, though, is a client that offers a playlist or podcast level setting where I can say I want to download the oldest unplaced episode for a show. iTunes has such a sync setting for TV shows, for example, and it would be very handy for podcasts where I'm working my way through an archive.

There is probably a limited audience for such a feature, however, so I'll probably have to keep waiting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really love the no-nonsense FAQ: [https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq](https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq)

I wish everyone would write such clear and concise FAQ. I especially love the answer to question 'Why is the app free?'

I loved the Instapaper app and will definitely buy this app. The current podcasts app on iOS platform are terrible. The only app I am able to tolerate is 'Downcast'.

<comment><USER5> I think PocketCasts is pretty awesome. So far Overcast isn't doing that much more for me than PocketCasts.

<comment><USER6> Is the iOS version of PocketCasts as bad as the Android version? The Android version does fundamentally work, but isn't robust. For example it will randomly stop playing mid podcast for no reason, forget that it is playing a sequence of podcasts, play two hours after pressing the play button, forget play position and revert to an earlier one, not sync play status between devices reliably and the list goes on. None of these are a big deal if you have the app in your pocket but are awful if you are driving since they require interaction to fix.

<comment><USER7> Weird. I use Pocket Casts on both an ipad and an Android phone every day with 50 subscribed podcasts and haven't had any of those things happen. Literally not a single one of those things. Several of those sound like a dodgy headphone connection though.

The only thing I don't like about it is that it's getting a bit unresponsive on the ipad 2 when you switch back to the app - takes a few seconds to respond to buttons.

<comment><USER6> I always connect via bluetooth to my car or to a jambox. The most recent time it randomly stopped playing was yesterday afternoon while driving - right in the middle of an episode on a long straight on the highway. For the record I have never had Google Music randomly stop playing using the same device(s) to the same car and jambox.

The position loss usually occurs with Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast where each episode is 3 - 5 hours long. I listen to about 30 minutes each time on the same device and sometimes it just resumes from a previous stop point rather then the most recent.

To demonstrate it forgetting about playing a list of items, start playing from an episode filter choosing Play All. Stop playing and then come back later. The lock screen will show that current playing episode as does the bottom of the UI. Press play in that. It will then play till the end of that episode and then stop - ie it forgets you were doing a Play All.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Be sure to check the FAQ[1] and the Privacy Policy[2], which clearly explain the design of the app, the reason for the data that's collected as well as how the data will be used. I'll be buying the full license right away just to reward the good behavior. Thanks Marco!

[1] [https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq](https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq) [2] [https://overcast.fm/privacy](https://overcast.fm/privacy)

</comment><comment><USER9> Smart Speed - here is what I thought it was, or what I wished it was: The app knows how long your commute will be and it attempts to shorten or lengthen the podcast in an unnoticeable way so that you can fit whole episode(s) into a single drive/bus ride. I have an annoying habit of sitting in my driveway waiting for a natural break in the podcast so that I can turn it off with a clear conscience.

<comment><USER10> Great idea. To start, why not have the app find episodes that match the user's commute time? For other episodes, an app like Overcast could first apply SmartSpeed and then speed up the entire episode (ie 1.1x) to match the commute time. I'm finding myself looking for good (financial) news podcasts that are < 20 mins per episode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just bought the app.

Smooth.

That's the only word I can use to describe the experience. Creating an account and adding my favorite podcast was accomplished in less than a minute. It is unbelievably polished for version 1. A must buy if you enjoy podcasts.

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't say unbelievably polished....

In my first 5 minutes of use it: \- Complained no podcasts could be played. \- Crashed on opening the second time. \- Once I could start playing then (post crash?) complained that there was no space left on the device when there was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Glad to see this is out, it looks nice. If you look at Federico's review/interview [1] you can find clips of the voice enhancer and gap shortener, they sound quite good. I know a few people who will probably jump on this.

I fight with the Podcasts app (and podcasts in iTunes) on a weekly basis. I would _love_ to replace it with something by a developer with a good track record like Marco, but I do about 80% of my podcast listening on my Mac and I don't think the annoyance factor is high enough for me to switch to using only my iPhone yet.

At the end of Federico's interview Marco says he's considering an iPad or maybe Mac app in the future, I can only hope.

[1] [http://www.macstories.net/reviews/overcast- review/](http://www.macstories.net/reviews/overcast-review/)

<comment> k-mcgrady In the FAQ it mentions a 'basic web app'. I haven't looked into it but you may be able to play on your desktop through that.

[https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq](https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq)

<comment><USER12> I saw that, but I'm not sure it will fit my needs. More than anything else, I want to be able to use the "play/pause" key on my keyboard to pause the podcast. I also really like the idea of the voice booster and I'm guessing that the web site won't get that (being 'basic' and all).

<comment><USER13> Don't expect the web app to become any serious Mac app competitor anytime soon. Based on Instapaper's website, Marco dislikes working on them. It will keep basic functionality but his main focus will be on iOS for the foreseeable future.

<comment> k-mcgrady I was looking at his twitter earlier and he was asking about Web Audio API's so maybe he does have plans to improve it.

[https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/489513461261430786](https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/489513461261430786)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The lack of streaming is a bummer. I subscribe to quite a few podcasts and pick-and-choose which episodes to listen to by streaming them on-demand instead of downloading everything.

<comment><USER15> "Streaming coming soon"

[https://twitter.com/OvercastFM/status/489448132556509184](https://twitter.com/OvercastFM/status/489448132556509184)

<comment><USER14> That's good to hear. Thanks for pointing it out. I wonder if streaming will be a "free" feature or a "premium" feature? For now, it's back to Pocket Casts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Some feedback. I'm a heavy Downcast user.

1) Didn't import all of my subscriptions. Specifically The Patch from Roosterteeth. Considering the opml file contains the URL, I don't see why this happened.

2) At least one or two podcasts I deleted a long time ago got imported. I haven't examined the opml file but Downcast doesn't show them anymore. So either Downcast is doing something wrong or the import is.

3) I read the Skeptics FAQ. That's really helpful.

4) Despite the FAQ I still don't see why the account is needed. I very nearly didn't create an account. If not for knowing who Marco is I never would have. I feel _very_ strongly about this with apps. Unless there is a clear and compelling reason to need to signup for a service then I don't.

The design is nice. But there's nothing compellingly different about this app compared to Downcast. It also has voice speed. It has lots of fiddly bits if you want to tinker with individual settings. Pay a couple dollars and get Downcast and you don't need an account.

<comment><USER17> > 2) At least one or two podcasts I deleted a long time ago got imported. I > haven't examined the opml file but Downcast doesn't show them anymore. So > either Downcast is doing something wrong or the import is.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to how Overcast could be getting that data if it's not in the Downcast export :p

<comment><USER16> I can't even guess without looking at the OPML file.

<comment><USER18> Seems pretty obvious that it must be in the OPML file. Bet you $100 it's in there.

<comment><USER19> Bet you $200!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Normalization! FINALLY

The amount of times I have to touch volume buttons on non normalized podcasts is nuts.

As long as this works decently or close to downcast in overall use I'll throw the $5 at this easy.

<comment><USER2> Hmm. Normalization means you don't have the change the volume between podcasts, but better than that would be dynamic range compression. A podcast with both loud music/effects/screaming and quiet/normal dialogue would be "evened out". You wouldn't have to adjust volume even within a podcast. I don't know of any audio player (desktop or mobile) that has this feature. It would be perfect for podcasts/audiobooks.

<comment><USER20> I'm just more happy that the quiet people and loud mean I don't need to have my ears blown out as much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's a really nice app and I bought it instantly. The App Sore's podcasting landscape is filling out nicely, with a diverse selection of high-quality apps for many different tastes. I wish there were as good a selection of apps for many other purposes.

There are Instacast, Downcast and Pocket Casts with tons of features, though all with slightly different approaches to UI and graphic design. A nice selection for anyone who wants every feature and everyone who has a very particular and personal way of listening and organising podcasts that doesn't fit with the way simpler apps organise the podcasts. For me their design (both UI and graphic design which in many cases is just awful) is a bit too noisy and loud and while they do have customisability the developers don't seem to have put as much effort into making the experience map well to typical listening scenarios right out of the box, making you do all the work. For me personally they are a bit to complex and confusing, but for people who need the features they are great.

On the other end of the scale is Castro with its simplicity (and excellent graphic design) that makes it very streamlined to use – if your approach to listening to podcasts fits with what they designers had in mind. For me it just fits perfectly. (I really need nothing besides a list of podcasts and a list of unplayed episodes. That's perfect for me.) Plus, background downloads work very well, even if they do consume a bit more battery. I can understand going with a server component, but it wouldn't have been an absolute necessity.

Overcast fits somewhere between the Instacast-Castro complexity spectrum (with some cool extra features no one else has), filling that gap.

Sadly, Marco Arment doesn't have the graphic design prowess of the people who made Castro, and since my demands are very simple I will stick with Castro for the time being. But I'm always up to switching it up and I can imagine it being a great app for many people.

(Those boxes I put those apps into aren't hermetically sealed. In some respects Overcast actually is simpler than Castro in very thoughtful way, for example. But in general those categories work well for me.)

<comment><USER18> I can see why some people would say Castro's design is better, but to me Castro is "over-designed". The visual slickness gets in the way of actually using it. I'd say Overcast is actually better designed, because it is more usable.

<comment><USER21> I don't think it does get in the way and I wouldn't see how …

But point taken. It uses less standard controls, certainly. I have nothing against standard controls, my issue with Overcast is more with alignment and layout (especially the alignment and layout of the podcast images, up there in a corner).

In the end my willingness to trade usability for graphic design might be slightly higher than that of many other people (at least those who care).

<comment><USER22> As an example (I'm not the guy who you responded to), I've been frustrated in Castro a number of times while looking at an episode in show's feed because the native swipe-back gesture takes you back to the list of shows rather than than that show's feed, and it gets especially annoying considering the lengths of the transitions involved. It's obnoxious, and something one would get used to, but I seem to keep forgetting it. It's one of a few elements of navel- gazing "over"-design… of course the user would follow the steps, they're the steps! They're right there in the design.

<comment><USER21> Ha, of course! That's an issue I also have run into. Luckily it's not often that I browse my podcasts that way, but if you do, that clearly sucks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Love the Onboarding screen [https://i.imgur.com/VcBZ4rD.png](https://i.imgur.com/VcBZ4rD.png)

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been looking forward to this and was planning on a day one purchase, so I'm pleasantly surprised to learn that there's even more here than I expected. Things like Smart Speed and Voice Boost are features I haven't seen anywhere else, and if they work as advertised, are major innovations.

They're also bred of listening to a lot of podcasts. Marco seems like he's scratching his own itch with these features, which is always great.

<comment><USER18> Just as a FYI, RSSRadio has had both silence removal and voice boosting for some time ([https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/rssradio-podcast- downloader/...](https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/rssradio-podcast- downloader/id386600664?mt=8))

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Easily the best user on-boarding experience of any podcast app I've used.

I was afraid I was going to have to manually subscribe to all my feeds again, but they were imported smoothly. Creating an account couldn't have been easier either.

I also really like that there is a "Delete Account" option front and center, letting me know I won't have to jump through hoops to get rid of my account.

</comment><comment><USER26> I feel a bit bad being so superficial, as the app has real merits, but the design is really painful. The app icon is just awful and, unfortunately, it is only a hint of what's to come upon launching the app. I hope it's successful enough to allow Marco some funds to hire a designer.

<comment><USER27> Each to their own, of course, but I find the design pretty good on the whole. The app icon was designed by Pacific Helm, so he _did_ hire a designer (and a pretty well-respected one); I'm not sure what the argument against it is. (Other than the subjective one, obviously.) And most of the interior is just typography, in a style that, at least to my eye, is pretty reminiscent of the UI for _The Magazine._ (Surprise.)

I suppose if you hate orange, you're going to find the whole thing pretty hideous. (But if you hate orange how can you bear Hacker News?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Awesome that there's a category called "Turns Out" in the Add Podcast list.

<comment><USER29> Made me laugh. IIRC that's Merlin Mann's characterisation of material based on surprising factoids and "everything you think you know about x is wrong" type stuff.

BTW you should all strongly consider listening to the _Roderick on the Line_ podcast. The latest episode is a good one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've never seen the tab bar put in the navigation bar before, and I really dig it. I'm actually in the process of designing an education app that plays audio, and have been debating how to avoid a hamburger/basement menu or gestures since the main audience for the app is older, and assumably less tech savvy. Putting the tab bar on top is a clever, and in hindsight incredibly obvious, compromise, since it provides for a now playing status bar on the bottom of the screen without hiding menu options. Nice.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "I've never seen the tab bar put in the navigation bar before"

I don't think it's a tab bar in the navigation bar. It just seems to be four buttons on a UIToolbar equally spaced.

Edit: Strange that this was down voted...care to explain why? It's almost certainly not a tab bar. A tab bar switches view controllers. The buttons on this bar present new ones modally leaving the current view controller in place.

<comment><USER18> My guess: because you used "just", which has the linguistic effect of belittling this four-button-toolbar innovation. I guess you didn't mean to do that, but you did anyway. I didn't down vote you BTW.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> At first glance, it doesn't look like it currently supports video podcasts. This is a bummer. Hopefully shows up in future versions or IAP

<comment><USER32> I'm surprised anyone still distributes their own video podcast, rather than just putting it up in a channel on YouTube. The bandwidth bill seems like it would kill you.

<comment><USER31> Some of the videos I subscribe to are produced my large media companies (Cable News). So I could see how content ownership would be important.

<comment><USER33> I'm surprised any large media companies are distributing any video content for free these days. Everything seems to be locked up onto proprietary video platforms, or sold piecemeal in stores like iTunes.

<comment><USER31> Most of the major news outlet in the US (NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FOX) offer many of their programs for free. It's nice to get morning news when I wake up or drive to/from work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Looks great.

I've actually been looking forward to this after hearing about it on ATP for months now. I was wondering what could be done to differentiate and I'm pleasantly surprised - smart speed and voice boost are killer features if they work as described.

Perhaps in a few years there will be an Android port I can buy and use to listen to Marco talk about how no one buys Android apps.

</comment><comment><USER32> Ok, the live levels display is adorable. And it displays even when you go back to the list. I am delighted, dammit.

</comment><comment><USER35> Being able to import from the ios Podcasts app would be useful. Who knows the RSS urls for podcasts any more?

</comment><comment><USER36> Really liking the smart speed and voice boost features. Feels like a huge improvement on my favorite podcast (Gear Geeks Live) which typically has audio quality issues.

Don't like getting hit up for an email address right off the bat, but Marco has a pretty solid track record.

<comment><USER17> Yes it would be nice to avoid this until you are sold.

It would also be nice to have an explanation as to why it's needed (web client etc).

<comment><USER37> From the faq [1]:

> Why an email address instead of a username?

> Password resets.

> I tried usernames with Instapaper at first, but people forgot their > passwords and got locked out of their accounts all the time. It was by far > the top support problem. Email addresses fix that. (Nothing's stopping you > from entering a fake address, but if you forget your password, I won't be > able to help.)

[1]: [https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq](https://overcast.fm/skeptics_faq)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I really like this. Can you please add the ability to stream a podcast (play while downloading). That would sell me on this completely.

<comment><USER39> [https://twitter.com/OvercastFM/status/489448132556509184](https://twitter.com/OvercastFM/status/489448132556509184) \- Streaming coming soon

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Maybe a little off-topic but which podcasts do you guys listen to? Any good tips on entrepreneurship / hacking podcasts?

</comment><comment><USER41> "About" screen is a very nice touch. I don't think I saw another up doing it this way.

</comment><comment><USER11> I can't believe it lacks streaming support. The download model is far outdated.

<comment><USER42> Why? My client automatically downloads all new podcasts when I'm at home using WiFi. Later I walk or drive through areas where the cell phone reception is not really reliable, steaming podcasts would stop all time. The download model is still the best by far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The feature list make this purchase a no-brainer. Excellent App.

</comment><comment><USER44> Anyone know if it does episode bookmarking/favourites?

<comment><USER18> No, it doesn't seem to. EDIT: actually it does seem to have some kind of "star" feature but hitting the star asks me to sign in to Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Overcast's settings page encourages you to try Marco's competitors if you don't like his app, right above the export option. Ballsy and classy. ([http://i.imgur.com/xO09x8d.png](http://i.imgur.com/xO09x8d.png))

It's a shame his two tentpole features (Smart Speed, Voice Boost) are locked behind the paywall, though. I'd have liked to try them out before dropping a sawbuck. Not sure if that's part of Apple's "no time-limited demos" policy, a business decision, or both.

edit: apparently I should have tried the effects menu before posting; they are apparently available for 5 minutes at a time without paying. (I say apparently because I already unlocked the app and can't easily verify the replies below.)

<comment><USER46> _Ballsy and classy._

To me it feels a little haughty. Basically, "if you think anything in this app is wrong, you are incorrect, and should go elsewhere"

Don't get me wrong, it's Marco so he has earned the right to dictate how an app is. It strikes me as more funny than anything else, but I wouldn't want people to see this and think they can replicate it without having a big name to back it up.

<comment><USER47> > Basically, "if you think anything in this app is wrong, you are incorrect, > and should go elsewhere"

To be honest, that isn't a terrible approach to take with this sort of app. Sure, there'll be some problems that he'll want to fix, but it's the sort of thing where people have differing personal preferences, and you're never going to please everyone.

EDIT: Also, I think I remember him talking before about how he implemented things due to user demand on Instapaper that ultimately didn't really fit, and which he regretted. Was on a podcast, unfortunately, so no link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I clicked the page, scrolled up and down, did not see visually what this was and left.

<comment><USER49> A powerful yet simple iPhone podcast player?</comment></comment>


View – Enjoy for 30s – Next – Repeat (No Going Back) - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys, that pretty much describes the app that my friend and I've been working on for a while.
We call it "FlipFeed", because you flip through a continuous feed of ephemeral photos and messages. You get 30s to enjoy, and then the moment disappears, and you move on.
The idea actually came from what one of my friends always did on Instagram. Check out a photo, like, and move on. And that's what humans do, right? We are interested more in what's coming up next than what we've already seen - and this is exactly what FlipFeed wants to target.
Any FlipFeed user (FlipFeeder?) can upload photos and messages (status, rant, general info, love note, quotes, or anything you like), and all these photos and messages submitted to FlipFeed are lined up and shown in a sequence. There's no filtering! So, it doesn't matter if you upload from New York or California, or from somewhere in China, everything shows up in the same sequence/order.
You can directly private-reply to anyone on the app. So, let's say if you're viewing my photo, you just tap the "Reply" button to send me a direct private-reply. This is a great way to start conversation with anyone, and make new relationships. Also check out the Easter egg in the "Write a message" screen.
We've kept the app pretty simple, because we want the content to be in the spotlight. It's very different from other apps. If you think about it, seeing photos and messages one-by-one submitted by totally different people is pretty exciting, because, as mentioned, you don't know what you're going to see next, and from whom. So, there's always that excitement of what's the next photo or message? People want to see interesting things, and with FlipFeed, we want people to share and check out interesting things - 30s at a time.
Check out http://flipfeed.co to get iOS app or to add yourself in the Android wait-list.
Thank you guys. Feedback is welcome. FlipFeed team. <comment><USER3> The app looks good with nice design, and icons. I think this can take off, but my only suggestion would be to have some kind of a "help" section. It's not confusing, but some guide for new users is always good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks!

I'm glad you like it. You're right, my friend and I've been thinking about doing something like this, but maybe in a more sleek way, maybe the app would start out with help messages, and users would just flip thorough them - <USER2> obstructive, yet gets the point across.

Did you find the Easter egg? If you have any more suggestion, please feel free to let us know.

Thank you again!

<comment><USER3> ya, that would be a nice way to display help. found the egg, haha, very well done. any date set for Android, kandarp? my friends use Android phones.

going to play more with this, will let you know.

<comment><AUTHOR> Android should be coming up soon! :)

Thanks ssscottiegood.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple design chief Jonathan Ive awarded knighthood - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/12/30/apple_design_chief_jonathan_ive_awarded_knighthood.html <comment><USER2> >Interestingly enough, Jobs himself was also considered for knighthood by the Queen of the United Kingdom, but the proposal was blocked by a former Prime Minister because Jobs declined to speak at a Labour Party conference.

That's fascinating to me. As an American who has never paid much attention to British knighthood, I am not knowledgeable about the process for selecting whom becomes a British knight. Could someone with the requisite knowledge perhaps elucidate on whether or not ostensibly petty politics get in the way of these things with regularity?

It seems absolutely absurd that someone who is being considered for knighthood could be denied of that because of something as minuscule as declining to speak at a party conference.

<comment><USER3> A lot of people have a say on the list of people to be honoured, but the Prime Minister is the most influential of the lot. Technically speaking the monarch could overrule any objection (afaik the process is not defined by any specific law or regulation, just built on convention), in practice it rarely ever happened with Elizabeth II. It will be interesting to see how this, like many other conventions established under her rule, will morph once we go back to having a male King who will be more popular than the political establishment, something that hasn't happened for a very long time.

<comment><USER4> Is there that much love for Charles?

<comment><USER3> Chances are that Charles will never be king, and if he is, it won't be for very long.

<comment><USER5> See also Edward VII -- <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_vii> \-- Queen Victoria's oldest surviving male offspring, he had to wait 59 years for the throne. Reigned for nine years, then died.

Given the Windsor family medical history, Elizabeth II could well make it past her centenary. In which Charles will not get to place his bum on the throne until he's in his late seventies or eighties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you have not seen Gary Hustwit's design documentary, "Objectified", I recommend it highly. Especially if you are not a professional designer (I am not a designer, and I know enough to appreciate good design, not produce it) [1].

In "Objectified", Dieter Rams (of iconic Braun fame) is asked if there is any company that really gets design today. He answers after a moment's pause: "Apple".[2]

[1] Ira Glass on the importance of having good taste before you can produce to the expectations of that taste

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY> (EDIT: Fixed link)

[2] "Objectified: Dieter Rams commentary"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBF1rOxWsxg>

<http://objectifiedfilm.com>

<comment><USER7> Its available on netflix instant <http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Objectified/70114976>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Incredibly well deserved. If we all learn one thing from Sir Jony Ive, it's that simplicity wins out every single time.

Really happy to see him get mainstream recognition, because he truly should be up there with all the other well-known genius Brit's like Branson and Dyson.

<comment><USER9> Its worth pointing out that Sir Jonathan went to a Further Education College and then a Polytechnic, and then went on to start his own small design agency?

This is an _excellent_ example to others including my own students some of whom are on design courses here in the UK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ever since the "Slay Dragon" requirement has been removed, the honour seems a bit shallow.

<comment><USER11> There is much wit in this brevity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's "Sir" Johnathan Ive. He was knighted, you know.

<comment><USER13> Hmm, this got me thinking: An interesting loop occurs when you want to announce that person X has been knighted (what is the verb for women, "damed"?), i.e. is now Sir X (SX). The thing is you can't say "SX has been knighted" because that is a tautology. But saying "X has been knighted" sounds wrong because, you know, he's no longer X.

<comment><USER14> > _(what is the verb for women, "damed"?)_

Spent a good ten minutes Googling this one. It would seem no separate word exists ('damed' is not a word), though one site suggested the use of 'daymed' (it's a pun. not very funny :)

I believe technically both men and women are knighted. One becomes a Sir, and the other a Dame. If you think it sounds funny, I supposed "made a dame" might be another way of phrasing it.

<comment><USER15> If memory serves, historically the verb "create" was used for high appointments. For example, the monarch would take Bill Smith and create him William, Duke of Somewhere. He would then formally be addressed as Lord Somewhere.

I don't know whether the same phraseology would ever have made sense for a knight, though, and I may well be a bit off on the details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Am I the only one who was under the impression that he was _already_ knighted for his work on the iPod/iMac (even before the iPhone was announced)? I could have sworn I read something to that effect many years ago.

<comment><USER17> He was a Commander, now he's a Knight Commander. Only now may he use the title "Sir".

<comment><USER18> He has to refer to himself as 'Sir' too?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm happy that Jony got awarded this honor. But when I read "Commander of the British Empire" I chuckled and thought to myself, it's 2012 and this really ought to say "Commander of the British Empire _or what's left of it_ " ;)

<comment><USER20> It's prestige without power, pointing out the lack of power lowers the prestige.

<comment><USER19> Pointing to something which doesn't exist anymore is usually bad thing. NPE's come to mind.

<comment><USER20> Patent trolls can scare off competitors, Sirs just mean they led a publicly useful, honorable British-started life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well-deserved.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wait ... that means he 's with the Empire now?

</comment><comment><USER22> Frankly, it's bullshit. If it takes the queen to Recognise and protect this level of art, then we are fucked Vs. US bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is as absurd as if he'd been given an honorary title by the Church of Scientology...

Am I the only one who sees this as a pitiful attempt by a government to rub elbows with someone who truly has merit, and by doing so to create the notion that there is some form of equality between the two?

I think any self-respecting person would decline knighthood. Though I can see in this case how his corporate responsibilities would lead him to accept it in order not to offend British subjects, since doing so might hurt sales.

<comment><USER17> The entire British government has no merit? Really?

<comment><USER23> One could make the same argument about the Church of Scientology. The knighthood is via the figurehead, monarchic part of the government which serves no actual purpose.

<comment><USER24> I'm guessing two things from this comment.

(1) You are a computer programmer.

(2) You are not British.

Am I right about either of them? I hope so. I upvoted you in sympathy. :)

<comment><USER23> You are correct. I have nothing against the British government or the Church of Scientology, but I do think titles of nobility are bizarre and a reminder of our civilization's dark past.

<comment><USER25> Do they really differ from the titles we use in the USA? "Senator" Bush. "Mr. President" (every president past and present)

"Sir" is no more a title of nobility (today) than any of those.

<comment><USER23> You would have to be the biggest cynic in the world about democracy to think there is no difference between an elected senator and a monarchic (hereditary) title of nobility.

<comment><USER26> It is almost as if you are trying not to understand, and just want to lash out at this, no matter what.

Yes, it is a title, nothing more, nothing huge, almost completely meaningless.

<comment><USER23> That's my point, it' meaningless. That modern humans think it's a big deal is the scary part.

<comment><USER25> Yet you are the one sounding the war drums.

<comment><USER23> Just trying to correct for the very common pro government bias.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>