We're Entering a Golden Age of Podcasts - <AUTHOR> https://chartable.com/blog/golden-age-of-podcasts <comment><USER4> I'm actually worried that podcasts are going the way of the web. What, for a while, was a weird world of enthusiasts talking about things that interests them seems to be morphing into a world of a few big corporate entities calling the shots.

I have two reasons for these worries.

1) The purchase of Gimlet by Spotify mentioned in the article. 2) The purchase of Stuff Media by iHeart.

The purchase of Gimlet is problematic for a couple of reasons, but the biggest is that a distribution channel now owns a large content company which could lead to content bubbling. I don't want to have different players for different shows, I want the shows to be available on all players. I believe this is already happening, "Crime town" season 2 is only available on Spotify.

The iHeart purchase might be more troubling. Have you ever noticed that no mater where you are in the US, the radio stations are extremely similar? This has a few reasons, one of which is, that station is probably owned by iHeart (formerly Clear Channel), they own over 400 radio stations are are in virtually every US market [1]. I'm not saying iHeart is evil, but the chance that shows get more homogenous increase when large corporate players have to satisfy shareholders. I'm not sure I can take any more true crime shows.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_owned_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_owned_by_iHeartMedia)

<comment><USER5> I tried some Gimlet podcasts but didn't find any of consistent quality. For me "consistent quality" means I'm willing to binge-listen every episode and in order.

<comment><USER6> I always enjoy Science Vs. Also, Startup, which actually has featured a bunch of YC companies. Reply all has good stuff too most of the time.

<comment><USER7> I wish Science vs. kept the sort of quality from earlier episodes when they were either not on Gimlet or had just come to Gimlet. They lean pretty heavily on narratives now, and while it may be entertaining, it's getting further and further away from science—or even minimally analytic.

<comment><USER6> I agree the format has changed a bit, but I still enjoy it. You're right though, going back to basics would be nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Personally, I'm not a fan of podcasts at all.

I've tried, and listened to some interesting ones, but in the end I'd much rather consume the same content by reading instead of listening. It's faster, it's easier to skim and skip around, you can have hyperlinks to other references, etc. Overall, text just works better for the kinds of content I'm interested in.

There's a podcast related to a product I work with that I've tried a few times. The podcast is very well done, but each one is about an hour long. I'd much rather have it as a blog post where I can skim through to find the pieces that interest me. They've gotten a little better with their episode descriptions where they tell you what topics they are talking about and when they start, but it's only a minor improvement.

Podcasts are also completely inaccessible to search engines. If I want to find the podcast where they talked about an interesting thing that I want to revisit, and it's not in the episode description, it's basically lost forever.

<comment><USER9> > I'd much rather consume the same content by reading instead of listening. > It's faster, it's easier to skim and skip around, you can have hyperlinks to > other references, etc

My counterargument to that is that in order to do any of those things you need to have your eyes engaged with the content. I can listen to podcasts (or audiobooks) while at the gym, cooking, doing laundry, cleaning dishes, or going to pick my kid from school. That means to me more than the advantages you mentioned.

One additional advantage: getting to sleep. I don't enjoy sleeping. If i have a light source near me, be it a lamp or a screen, I don't feel sleepy at all. I can't fall asleep while watching a Netflix show that I like. I have done the experiment. I can feel sleepy while reading a book, but an engaging one and a night lamp will keep me awake: I read the first Harry Potter volume in a single sleep-less night. Listening to podcasts with the lights off and my eyes closed makes me drift to sleep much more easily.

<comment><USER10> A slightly different take on your "eye engagement" point is that podcasts allow us to utilize time that would otherwise be spent listening to music, talking to others, thinking, or just zoning out. Combined with Apples air pods (a horribly great piece of technology), I find myself using lots of time for podcasts that I wouldn't otherwise (like when I'm doing the dishes). I find all of this enjoyable overall but I do worry that the decreased time that I spend in thought or present with others could be a net negative in the end.

<comment><USER11> Are there any studies on how good retention is when consuming books as a background task while you're doing something else? Sample size = 1, but I briefly tried listening to audio books while driving, cooking, etc. but stopped when I realized I got all the way through a few books without even vaguely remembering what they were about.

<comment><USER12> Yeah IDK if I'm just way worse at focusing on spoken words while doing other things than most people or what, but I can't get into podcasts or audio books at all. If I do other things while listening I miss so much that I have no idea what's going on, and even the supposedly very good ones are so dull that if I'm going to spend focused time consuming them I'd rather read, or watch something, or listen closely to some good music, or almost anything else.

I guess maybe if I got back into running they'd be good for that. Can't think of when else I could possibly use them.

<comment><USER13> I've found it extremely dependent on fine differences in the primary thing I'm doing. e.g. I have no problem following if I'm going on an uneventful or familiar drive, but will automatically tune it out if I don't know where I'm going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Creators may be entering a golden age, but the delivery methods and infrastructure have been stagnant for years now. We now have ongoing shows, evergreen episodic shows, "two amateurs in a basement" niche shows, 12-episode and it's done audiobooks, and various other designations of podcasts, and yet we still serve everything like it's a blog that needs to release content weekly. I also find it frustrating that we only categorize by topic. I'll listen to something very different on a 5 hour car ride than I would on a 15 minute walk with my dog (beyond something "Comedy" instead of "News")

Most listeners see Apple Podcasts as "good enough", but I find it confusing, and other applications follow the same approach with one or two "tweaks" that are not worth sacrificing features or adjusting to a new UI. I'm still optimistic that Spotify can get their act together (since they have the resources and incentive), but they haven't done anything dazzling since quietly adding a podcast section years ago.

It severely limits the capabilities of the medium, and yet no one seems to think anything is wrong. I understand this structure is a result of RSS serving as the backbone of "podcatchers", but everyone would benefit from a bit of lateral thinking.

<comment><USER15> Apple Podcasts has gotten worse pretty much every year. I have switched to Overcast and I find it excellent. Lean and clean.

<comment><USER16> Overcast seems to bug out on me everytime I try to play episodes in the order they were released instead of most recent first.

It also never removes played episodes no matter what my settings.

Seriously these should be simple things.

<comment><USER17> I had the same issue with it playing episodes in an awkward order because I wanted it to _show_ me the episodes in "most-recent-first" order, but I wanted it to play in the reverse order. I got around it by creating smart playlists - I have some that are each for a single show, and I have a "back catalog" playlist for a group of podcasts where I'm catching up on older episodes, and it interweaves them all together based on their chronological release dates, so that if there's news that each one discusses, they generally get played back-to-back.

I've never had a problem with it not deleting episodes, so I can't help you there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am surprised that higher capacity storage on phones was not mentioned as a driver of podcast listenership. For me, when I upgraded to a phone that had 32GB of storage around 2014 I was finally able to store mp3s that would download automatically ready for me to listen to along with all the music and photos that we would otherwise fill up our phone storage with. Before this, it was actually pretty hard to be an avid listener of lots of podcasts without having to deal with the hassle of managing your data storage.

<comment><USER19> I suspect you're correct. I find it surprising that people buy flagship phones that don't include an SD card reader. It seems that there's a belief among some handset manufacturers that storage capacity is only relevant for apps since all media is stored in the cloud. Either that or they just want to charge you for that extra storage. Being able to download hours worth of podcasts on an SD card and not worry about storage is fantastic.

<comment><USER20> > I find it surprising that people buy flagship phones that don't include an > SD card reader.

Because most don't come with an SD card reader and there are other features people want besides that. Buying a $1000 phone is all about the trade-offs one is willing to live with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> While I agree there are plenty of great podcasts out there, I disagree with some of the things in the article.

> When Netflix moved into streaming, they invested billions of dollars into > original programming, helping usher in the "New Golden Age of Television"

The current age of TV started long before Netflix moved to original content. This is not a model anyone should want to see in podcasts. Closed wall content is bad for everyone.

> For listeners, there will be more amazing shows of all kinds. More media > companies will invest in creating quality long-form audio.

I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. I listen to and enjoy some expensive, high production corporate podcasts. But I greatly prefer independent podcasts. So many corporate ones are overproduced (eg Radio Lab) or are full of ads, begging for money, cross promotions, and other non-content (eg 99% Invisible). I'm concerned that high budget shows will push out high quality indie shows and make them harder to find.

> Spotify will create more exclusive content to aggregate and retain > listeners.

This is terrible for everyone except Spotify. Closed wall content is bad for everyone. Despite being a paid Spotify user I will not listen to any Spotify exclusives. If you become a Spotify exclusive you're dead to me.

<comment><USER22> > Closed wall content is bad for everyone.

You said that twice. It's not bad for subscribers. There's a good argument to be made that ad-driven content is bad for everyone. In fact there's an argument to be made that ad-driven content is ushering in the end of the world. Who was it that said "we're building dystopia to maximize clicks." If you pay for your media, you at least know what the product really is.

<comment><USER21> > You said that twice.

Yes, intentionally.

> There's a good argument to be made that ad-driven content is bad for > everyone.

No disagreement here. I donate to independent podcasts directly. They get 100% of the money. Many of them have no ads or two versions, one that's free with ads or one that's paid with no ads. It's the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER23> > Many of them have no ads or two versions, one that's free with ads or one > that's paid with no ads. It's the best of both worlds.

I disagree with this strategy. In my opinion, pushing advertising on anyone is immoral and just because I can pay to get out of it doesn't absolve the podcaster who's still putting ads in the 'free' version.

A good podcaster doesn't push ads, full stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I remember listening to EconTalk back when you downloaded it to your mp3 player using a computer. And maybe I'm a hipster but the golden age seems to be over. It's all too mainstream now, too polished, too polite.

Nowadays, I scroll through the multiple new episodes of many shows I used to enjoy to rarely find something I genuinely want to hear. Sure, you can probably dig to something like Cum Town but even then it doesn't feel fresh any more.

It's the same with binge watching TV (mentioned in the OP). Much more fun when you pirated the show, when it wasn't intended than when you're just some engagement metric. I haven't binge watched a TV show in at least three years.

Also, Google already had a podcasting app once (Google Listen?). I remember using it in like 2012.

<comment><USER25> fellow econtalk/cumtown (well more red scare) listener here..

The latest feed refresh used to make me feel "Wow how will I have time to listen to all of these!" whereas now its "God do I really want to listen to any of these."

I guess previously we were all starved of interesting long form conversations (or socialist edgelords) but now we're reasonably satiated and like anything else it has to be good to hold our attention.

I still find a good econtalk pod is one of my greatest pleasures - russ & munger episodes particularly.

<comment><USER26> People actually listen to red scare!?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As a long-time podcast listener, I have been steadily reducing my intake of podcasts in recent months. For me, this is largely due to a few annoying trends, such as Podcast A airing an episode of Podcast B, a new offering from the same organization. These crossovers are becoming common, and they are basically very long ads. I am seldom interested, but it's difficult to get them out of the play queue, especially while driving.

As a long-time independent podcast creator, it feels as though the field is becoming saturated, making it nearly impossible for a podcast to stand out without the backing of a major podcast network. It is reminiscent of the tipping point of blogs, where the quirky ecosystem of offerings mostly congealed. That change was good for advertisers and a few big content companies, but detrimental to the diversity of content.

<comment><USER28> Oh I HATE the trend of corporate podcasts shoving episodes of other shows into their feed. I look forward to a new episode of the show I like only to start it and hear some other show. A close second is some podcasts have started putting reruns into their feed. I guess someone told them that missing weeks is bad so they just put a rerun in. Ugh.

<comment><USER27> Agreed, re-runs are another annoyance that is driving me away from many podcasts. The concept is an obsolete relic of broadcasting.

<comment><USER29> Yes, which is why I forgive This American Life for doing it - they pioneered the format that many podcasts follow, and TAL started on, and is still broadcast on, radio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The writer made a pretty common finance misunderstanding mistake here:

"That may change soon: Spotify bought Gimlet Media, a premium podcast studio, and Anchor, a podcast hosting platform, for $340 million earlier this month. That's a lot of money for an industry that was sized at just $314 million in 2017."

Gimlet Media's $340M price tag reflects enterprise value which bakes in future cash flows, while the industry market size of $314M is reflective of estimated revenues in 2017. Apples and oranges.

</comment><comment><USER28> I hope that this leads to better podcast discovery. The categories on things like pocketcasts are way too broad. For example, go into the news & politics category and there are tons of true crime podcasts. I don't care about true crime. I just want to hear the news or political talk. In education there are tons of language learning shows and self-help garbage.

<comment><USER31> Absolutely. This is why I was hopeful at Google entering the Podcast scene. I was hoping they would use the large amount of data to push podcast recommendations forward.

I have yet to see anyone really doing anything like that, taking your list of subscribed podcasts and using that to recommend you new ones. Seems like a trivial and extremely useful service to provide.

<comment><USER32> > taking your list of subscribed podcasts and using that to recommend you new > ones

Google Podcasts does exactly that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If anything there's _too many_ good podcasts - I usually set my device to keep the five most recent, and there are good shows I simply don't get to.

(I never could "zone out" and program while a podcast is on like some people, I need ambient/classical/electronic music to do that)

<comment><USER34> I almost never listen to podcasts for this reason, and because it is vastly more efficient to read than it is to listen to a couple of people talking who may or may not be sticking to the topic.

It's funny the market effect, if you're, say, John Dolan, it's vastly more time efficient to spend an hour and a half talking to your buddy and get paid for it than it is to spend many hours researching and writing a 1000 or 2000 word essay on a topic that nobody wants to pay for. It's kind of interesting the psychology here: people will pay for things which take hours out of their week, but won't pay for the thing which takes 3 minutes to read, even if the 3 minute thing contains more information. From my perspective; the denser information is more valuable!

<comment><USER35> Most of the podcasts I listen to are while doing things like exercise and housework that aren't compatible with reading.

The podcasts I listen to are all from the BBC, so they're scripted and produced for radio, rather than just being people chatting. Listen to e.g. [1] or [2] and it's all on topic (and being the BBC, ad-free).

[1] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p066rd9t/episodes/downloads](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p066rd9t/episodes/downloads) [2] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r4vz/episodes/downloads](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r4vz/episodes/downloads)

<comment><USER36> The BBC's Podcasting House podcast [1] is excellent for discovering new, high quality stuff. They play you a single episode (often the first) of a different podcast every week. I've discovered some great shows through it.

[1] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ltqxn/episodes/downloads](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05ltqxn/episodes/downloads)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I love podcasts. As a self-employed person who needs some light distraction but can't walk to a water cooler and just kill some time, they are perfect.

I tried going back to the radio yesterday for a moment and almost threw up with the quality.

Not sure if a "Netflix for podcasts" would work. Unless ad money dries up because advertisers think people skip them too much, then I am not sure what the advantage would be.

I do skip some of the commercials, but I feel like enough get through to make worth their while. I have legitimately bought stuff because of them.

I saw an article about how much Joe Rogan's podcast makes and it was insane, over tens of millions of dollars per year.

The guy does zero advertising and probably has less than 5 people working on it. Fucking ridiculous.

<comment><USER38> The stuff Rogan advertises is so _bizarre_. It has been a couple of weeks since I listened to him, but the one I can remember best was some sort of payment app that supposedly paid the user to use the app. Then there have been various AM-radio-type "nutritional" products. Maybe mainstream firms don't want to be associated with him, but how do the goofballs he advertises come up with 8 figures every year?

<comment><USER39> The Cash App is made by Square and they probably pay him a lot. And you'd be surprised how much money pseudo-pharmaceuticals like Alpha Brain can make. They usually put tiny amounts of different compounds (legitimate compounds, but below their effectiveness thresholds) into each capsule. Their marginal cost is very low, and they sell at extreme markup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The golden age has arrived, but for content aggregators and shovel-peddlers.

Aggregators like Spotify will buy up popular podcasts and start setting their revenue percentages on the basis of "attention" or some other engagement metric, that will eventually lead to podcasts diluting their content to appeal to the largest possible base. It's already happened to their playlists.

The shovel-peddlers will be the usual ebook/video course sellers pitching the 2010s version of "How to blog your way to millions", but for podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER41> I feel, at least for me, the golden age of podcasts is over already.

There was the early [0] Retronauts the new Patreon/Kickstarter version is only same in name.

Then there was the [1] 1up Yours. All the hosts, co-hosts, and popular regular guests have moved on.

Then there was the epic [2] A Life Well Wasted by Robert Ashley. This is absolutely superb.

The only podcasts of similar I listen to now are Giant Bombcast and 8-4 Play. I miss the good old days.

I've tried to branch out to other topics and areas, but podcasts are my way of escaping and thinking and listening to something else outside work and study.

I have actually started to go back through these and re-listen to them. They are timeless. I have a friend who does the same.

[0] [https://archive.org/details/Retronauts1-100](https://archive.org/details/Retronauts1-100)

[1] [https://www.resetera.com/threads/1up-podcast- preservation.90...](https://www.resetera.com/threads/1up-podcast- preservation.90181/)

[2] [http://alifewellwasted.com/](http://alifewellwasted.com/)

<comment><USER29> We match up well in when we started listening to podcasts, and what we listened to. But I still love Retronauts! I still like the more discussion- oriented episodes that mix deep insights along with personal experiences, but I'm still impressed by the consistent quality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> If you want to explore what podcasts are out there, try Listen Notes, a podcast search engine I built [https://www.listennotes.com](https://www.listennotes.com)

You would be surprised how many unknown but interesting podcasts on the Internet :)

<comment><USER43> That's an awesome thing that you made! So far I've just been doing very limited searching from within Overcast. This is pretty much exactly what I was looking for, plus a whole bunch of features I didn't even know I wanted :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I love falling asleep to Jo Rogan Podcasts.

Also - to his credit, what I like about Joe Rogan, is that he brings on smart people and just is inquisitive and asks questions, and never over speaks them, treats them with respect and asks questions from a point of curiosity...

<comment><USER45> >> inquisitive and asks questions, and never over speaks them, treats them with respect and asks questions from a point of curiosity...

spot on - this is what I like about Joe Rogan podcasts too.

Most interviewers can't help talking or interrupting, just when the interviewee was about to say something interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm terrified that Stamps, MeUndies, and SquareSpace will go out of business and all podcasts will be left with no stream of revenue. /s

</comment><comment><USER47> Podcasting is probably the closest thing right now to the authenticity, diversity, and creativity of the early web. There's a massive diversity of podcasts out there on every subject and even many of the purely amateur ones are of very high quality.

<comment><USER48> I agree wholeheartedly! With my podcasts I feel I know the hosts, I look forward to the content, they may have ads but they pick them to match the content and they are still honest about the products they present in those ads. I don't know what it is, but it feels much more personal (I mainly listen to Jupiter Broadcasting podcasts (no more ads since recently) and some related ones but also Twit and NoAgenda (no ads at all) from time to time. Looking very much forward to the continuation of Stephen Fry's Great Leap Years...

I even feel personal interest in the lives of the hosts. Some I've been listening to for over a decade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Cofounder of Chartable here, happy to answer any questions.

And, if you're looking for podcast recommendations, I recently analyzed 522 recommendations from 25 different critics' best-of lists to find the best of the best podcasts of 2018, also on the blog: [https://chartable.com/blog/the- best-podcasts-of-2018](https://chartable.com/blog/the-best-podcasts-of-2018)

</comment><comment><USER50> I disagree, I think we have reached peak Podcast and are now entering the walled garden, _possibly_ over-sponsored/advertised age of Podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER51> The golden age of podcasts is now, from here on I predict much much corparate efforts to destroy the free and decentralized thing the podcast scene is compared to other media.

Relatively little ads, relative many people self hosting, very direct connections between producers and listeners, not limited by my Plattform or patent – from now on it is going downhill.

</comment><comment><USER5> I consume these types of media in order of consumption volume

1\. Podcasts 2\. The Economist (text and audio) 3\. Youtube

Podcast listening dominates. I had started listening to podcasts when I was having trouble sleeping and wanted to stop using drugs (Trazodone) to help me sleep. I still use podcasts for that purpose, but I also now listen to them any time that I am able - like driving or doing chores or yardwork. It's just amazing to have some well-spoken, interesting person or persons in my head while I do something that doesn't require the higher cognitive centers.

My rule for podcasts is quality over quantity - meaning quantity of channels in my app, not quantity of hours consumed. My "binge podcasts" are those by Mike Duncan - "The History of Rome" and "Revolutions". Other favorites are "In our Time". If anyone know of other podcasts of the same quality as those by Mike Duncan, please do share.

<comment><USER52> Note that you can add The Economist's audio feed to your Podcast app. So your 1 and 2 can be the same :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> One of the things that seems really interesting to me is how personal podcasts seem to be to listeners. People really spend time custom curating their lists. Many of the problems with podcasts pointed out below don't bother me in the least, but its because of what I tend to listen to, whereas I have entirely different problems I don't see reflected in anybody else's issues.

I think this really speaks to how customizable people's listening habits and needs are.

For example, I mostly listen to podcasts when doing dishes and cooking. And I focus on topics that don't really have a timeliness component, so it doesn't matter if the podcast doesn't release new episodes or I discover it years late.

</comment><comment><USER42> Podcasts are ubiquitous.

There are high quality productions like shows from gimlet media. But most podcasts are more like twitter / Instagram accounts. Podcast becomes a channel for marketing (companies) or self expression (individuals) or exploring some kind of long tailed interests.

There's strong demand of accessing podcast contents from listeners, pr agencies, ads agencies, app developers, teachers & students in k12 schools.

Ps, if you want to build a podcast app or a service that needs to access podcasts, you can try out our API: [https://www.listennotes.com/api/](https://www.listennotes.com/api/)

<comment><USER54> I'm building an app on listennotes right now. It's a fantastic API and wenbin provides amazing support!

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Can anyone tell me if young people listen to podcasts? Like people under 16? I found something that suggests 7% of listeners are under 17*... I just wonder with an audience split like that, is it expected that young people will suddenly pick up podcasts when they reach a certain age? Or is it an indicator that the format doesn't appeal to the youngest generation?

[https://www.convinceandconvert.com/podcast-research/new- demo...](https://www.convinceandconvert.com/podcast-research/new-demographic- research-shows-who-really-listens-to-podcasts/)

<comment><USER56> Teenagers mostly don't have long commutes, which is where a lot of podcast listening seems to happen.

<comment><USER57> There's also much less content for teenagers. Not all of them are interested in politics or news, for example, which rules out a significant portion of podcasts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I work for a German podcast hosting company and what's been happening in podcasting in 2018 here in Germany is pure madness. There's been an explosion of different companies and producers that have gotten into the space, bringing really high-quality content.

Also, Spotify grew into the second largest platform bringing in a lot of fresh air and slowly but steadily eating into and breaking up Apple's monopoly. Now we're all kind of wondering what's gonna happen next after the acquisition of Gimlet and Anchor.

If this isn't the Golden Age of podcasts yet, we're sure pretty close.

<comment><USER59> Offtopic, but do you know of any good German fiction podcasts? I'm looking for something like LeVar Burton Reads in German. I'm somewhere around B1/B2 and trying to improve a little.

I listen to a lot of IQ Wissenschaft und Forschung, but need a bit of variety.

I've had a lot of trouble searching due to localization services.

<comment><USER60> There is [https://fyyd.de/charts](https://fyyd.de/charts) if you want a good overview of the german podcast scape.

For fiction maybe something like that [https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/audio/hoerspiel- speicher/wdr_h...](https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/audio/hoerspiel- speicher/wdr_hoerspielspeicher150.html) ?

<comment><USER59> Even that seems to have localization unless Mike Missanelli - Philly's First FM Sports Station is the 6th most popular podcast in Germany. Everything showing on the charts (for me) is English language.

Hörspiel-Speicher looks interesting though, thanks!

<comment><USER60> Indeed, I changed my locale to en_US and I got whole other bunch of podcasts. Change your locale to de_DE and it will have all of german podcasts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I started listening to "Serial", "This American Life", "Hardcore History" and a large number of other programs. Podcasts are generally easier to consume, reconsume, and schedule. That said, recently (several years) I've moved off of podcasts because there was a surge of podcast content, and no good mechanism to find quality programs. That and I was never able to find consistently good podcast software.

</comment><comment><USER39> For anyone who isn't aware of it, the YC podcast is pretty good: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ- uHSnFig5PACZiyiDk1...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ- uHSnFig5PACZiyiDk1O24Zm9wxAEUi)

A few episodes I liked:

Leonard Susskind on Richard Feynman, the Holographic Principle, and Unanswered Questions in Physics - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQAcLW6qdQY&list=PLQ- uHSnFig...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQAcLW6qdQY&list=PLQ- uHSnFig5PACZiyiDk1O24Zm9wxAEUi&index=102)

Office Hours with Michael Seibel \- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ2BWOT4hfs&t=0s&list=PLQ- uH...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ2BWOT4hfs&t=0s&list=PLQ- uHSnFig5PACZiyiDk1O24Zm9wxAEUi&index=86)

Peter Reinhardt on Finding Product Market Fit at Segment \- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-vfn97QTr0&t=0s&list=PLQ- uH...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-vfn97QTr0&t=0s&list=PLQ- uHSnFig5PACZiyiDk1O24Zm9wxAEUi&index=89)

</comment><comment><USER62> I believe behind much of this success with Podcasts is that we are actually entering a golden age for Audio content that isn't music. So I don't think this is limited to just podcasts but podcasts are riding this wave.

I think the Apple AirPods, gaining extreme popularity and removing so much friction, the home speakers and the incredibly busy lives of people today all make audio easier to consume while doing other things. I think we will see more and more interesting content in this space and it's not limited to Podcasts or Audio books. I think we may even get to a point where we see audio go viral, which has never happened to my knowledge.

As an example of alternate sources for gaining knowledge on the go, and a little self promotion, I have built an App that uses AI/ML models to read any article to you.

You check it out here at [https://articulu.com](https://articulu.com)

Generally I'm incredibly motivated by the non music Audio space and I think there will be even more interesting things coming.

</comment><comment><USER63> HN is fully of early adopter types so I'm not surprised to see the pessimism about the future of podcasts but this industry still has a long ways to go. Podcasting will probably never be as big as video (streaming, TV, YouTube, etc.) but it's a natural 21st century transition for radio to make. Podcasts have the same advantage as Spotify and Netflix in the sense that programming is not limited to a specific radio station or a specific time. The medium is also diverse enough to support a wide array of content.

The worst thing about podcasts is the ad reads, but with the right platform I'm sure it will get better. Another criticism is that many "professional" podcast are edited with the same cloth, they have that "NPR hipster" feel with a banjo and some strings in the background. But as more podcasts come up this too will be remedied.

</comment><comment><USER64> I've been a dedicated podcast listener for years, but have recently started to shift towards a larger portion of books on Audible instead where I'd previously listen only to podcasts.

I wish I'd have done so earlier, at some point you start bottoming out on the depth podcasts on a given topic can give you.

</comment><comment><USER65> So, how is this different from the previous attempts to turn unpaid podcasts into paid podcasts? Given the amount of content in the podcast space, people seem to find other shows.

Plus, the whole idea really suffers when you talk about people like Joe Rogan or any other big name. They can get money from advertisers themselves. We see some of this with YouTube and how "networks" are working or not working. An honest business person willing to create a low-overhead agency to hook creators up with sponsors would probably go far. This whole thing reminds me of the MC Hammer story about the economics of a record deal versus selling records out of the trunk of his car.

<comment><USER18> > Plus, the whole idea

What idea are you referring to? The article I read talks about why podcasts are becoming more popular but doesn't present any new idea around advertising (unless I missed it).

<comment><USER65> the whole idea from the article about buying up all the podcasts ala Netflix. How did you read the article and miss the Spotify part?

<comment><USER18> As I understand, Spotify podcasts still contain ads. It's not clear from the article that they intend to provide ad free podcasts for a monthly subscription either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I have a serious question:

For those of you that like podcasts, did your usage go way down (or even stop) when you got married?

I listened to them all the time back in the day, but mostly because they were tech oriented. For husband / wife activities only video/youtube/netflix seem to work.

Is there any notion that Podcasts are better for people not in relationship thing? I mean you have to either play it for the house or listen on your headphones and it just doesn't make sense to try to tune out the wife for multiple hours.

Also my favorite podcast, Java Posse is done anyway. It's weird to actually hear someone calling this the golden age when it was, for me, 10 years ago of listening to them non-stop.

<comment><USER67> I've been listening to podcasts for something like 15 years, since early days of TWiT & Java Posse, but I think my usage has remained the same over that time when I've been in long term relationships.

My current partner and I will listen to more 'general' podcasts when we are both in the car - so things like This American Life, Akimbo, Heavyweight, How I Built This, or Dan Carlin's HH and Common Sense.

When I'm driving or walking around solo, I'll listen to more tech / niche things. Podcasts like the Accidental Tech Podcast, Ruby / React / startup type things, etc.

There is honestly so much good content out there that my 'to-listen' queues in Overcast are overflowing for both types of listening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I'm a huge consumer of podcasts, almost entirely comedy podcasts, which are just comedians bs'ing for a couple hours about nothing. However I watch all of them on Youtube, they all record the podcast with video and upload them. I find it to be a much better experience being able to see the person and many use the video aspect to pull up images and video. I guess it's basically just watching tv at that poi

I've even started my own yt channel to comment on these podcasts because I enjoy it so much. Plus there's so much content being created there's always something to talk about.

</comment><comment><USER69> Are we? Podcasts are pretty overwhelming - there's so many of them, it's so hard to catch up, and I'm so tired of Blue Apron ads read by the hosts of podcasts.

Personally, I've pretty much stopped listening to anything outside of NPR One, which does an okay-to-pretty-good job of simplifying the experience of listening to podcasts (at least aligned to NPR). Even then the ads are super annoying.

<comment><USER70> The ads may be annoying, but consider that ad reads in podcasts are a much more ethical and sustainable advertising model than almost any other model out there. In addition, ad read time takes up at most 5% of the total run time of your average podcast.

People who do podcasts as a living or companies where podcasts are their primary revenue source need to make money somehow.

Take How Stuff Works for instance. They have some great informational podcasts like "Stuff you Should Know", "Stuff to Blow your Mind", "Stuff they don't want you to know", and "Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe". These podcasts cover very interesting, and sometimes, very important topics. How stuff works makes their money from selling ad reads in their podcasts and ad space on their blog. They are providing a valuable service and paying people to literally do nothing but research and produce podcasts. These people need to get paid.

My point is, while nobody actually likes ads, the model which podcasts employ is at least tolerable; especially when compared to something like ads on Youtube.

<comment><USER71> The most inspiring form of monetization in podcasting currently comes from Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak. Their No Agenda podcast is "value for value", where the fans contribute. They have actually been debating the Gimlet purchase, and have apparently turned down a similar offer.

I think both Curry and Dvorak are right when they say that you can actually hear the distaste for reading the ads, and that only very few people are able to do it well.

The concept of value for value put forward by No Agenda is fantastic, there's no fixed price, no paywall, but you are encouraged to donate. I can't explain it as beautifully as Adam Curry, but the gist of it is: What value did you derive from listing? Was it $5, $10 or maybe $100 dollars, then please donate that amount. I also think there's a point to his idea that people love being mentioned during the donation segment of the show.

It not clear how much Curry and Dvorak make from No Agenda, but I have the feeling that it much more than they care to admit.

Sort of an aside: The audio quality of No Agenda is in my opinion the very best in podcasting. Even much bigger productions, with more resources and better equipment sound much worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> My guess is most people will end us listening to a lot of rehashed mediocre stuff. People will get addicted to listening to random conversations and won't even know what else to do. It will be like twitter but without any feedback mechanism. It will replace people's song listening time with a less melodic medium. Scary.

</comment><comment><USER73> Tech Dirt recently dropped a podcast episode about podcasting.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190219/12502141633/techd...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190219/12502141633/techdirt- podcast-episode-200-big-business-podcasting.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER74> > But unlike text-based news and blogs, which have gone through waves of > centralization and disruption thanks to Facebook and Google, the podcast > industry has remained stubbornly decentralized.

Anyone know why podcasting has remained stubbornly decentralized? What are the market forces that lead this to happen?

</comment><comment><USER75> I think is a bit over hyped looking at just the extra time you have and use that to listen to podcasts: driving, gym on the go. But if you have choice between that and the other medium it compete against a for you attention, it isn't a win as they hype sugggests

</comment><comment><USER76> Honest question here: How do you guys get the time/focus to listen to podcasts?

I can't focus on people talking while doing something else so I either have to put down whatever I am doing in order to listen, or I'll miss most of what is being said.

Maybe it's just me?

<comment><USER77> There are a lot of daily activities that don't require your full attention

      - commuting (driving, bicycle, public transport)
      - getting ready for work (shower, getting dressed)
      - cooking, eating
      - laundry, dishes, vacuuming, ...
      - <USER2>
      - <USER3>
      - exercise/working out
      - ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> We already entered it. Serial was the tipping point - a crime podcast with NPR quality production, got hugely popular, people who didn't even like podcasts where talking about it. Also, Gimlet media's production quality is very high.

</comment><comment><USER79> If Radiotopia sells out to a conglomerate or publisher, I will be extremely sad. And I am worried that I will eventually need N different apps to listen to the podcasts I like instead of just one. I don't like where this is headed. :(

</comment><comment><USER80> I have my regular podcasts that I listen to pretty much every week and some others that I dip in and out of.

I just hope podcasts don't fall to the walled gardens, it's already happening with Spotify, BBC Sounds etc. They hate the idea of RSS

</comment><comment><USER81> Really? It felt like the golden age of podcast was a decade ago. I haven't listened to podcasts in a while. With YouTube premium, you can just listen or watch YT videos instead, so maybe it's golden age for videocasts?

<comment><USER82> Joe Rogan said that roughly half of his audience is watching his videocasts rather than listening to his podcasts

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Time was, you had to be very careful where you hosted your RSS files because there were so many badly written players that polled the website every few seconds without any caching. Is this still the case?

<comment><USER84> I guess CDNs and services like S3 made it a non-issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> The number of podcast creators keeps increasing, and with that, they are getting harder and harder to find, even the ones you already know.

The search tools and search directories need more advanced search options.

</comment><comment><USER86> This could be a dumb question, but is there any service that lets you:

1\. Bookmark a time in a podcast 2\. Highlight/tag a section or snippet 3\. Contextually search for phrases or words in a podcast

?

<comment><USER87> Overcast (iOS app) does the first of your points.

<comment><USER86> Awesome. Thanks. I'll check it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> There is practically no podcast market in Japan yet and with an average commute of 80 minutes it seems like it's ripe for someone to make something happen.

<comment><USER89> That's when they sleep so it might be hard to break into that market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> There's a lot more content out there now but the ratio of content to advertising has absolutely plummeted. Good for podcasters bad for listeners.

</comment><comment><USER91> I'm truly grateful for podcasts as a medium where I can learn something and not have to stare at a screen anymore

</comment><comment><USER92> Somehow I never found podcasts interesting.

I was special guest in one last year and liked to talk, but I never liked listening to them.

</comment><comment><USER93> There's simply no way that "23-25% of US adults listen to podcasts daily or a few times a week."

</comment><comment><USER94> Crazy idea, but what if Twitter spun off a subsidiary called Odeo to capitalize on this novel trend‽

</comment><comment><USER95> Which podcast will help me improve my communication skills? Especially listening and speaking?</comment>


The Humiliating Practice of Sex-Testing Female Athletes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html <comment><USER2> From my understanding, the sole reason that many sports are sex-segregated is because women can't compete at men's levels in those sports.

Why else have a male soccer and female soccer (other than historical reasons that could, nowadays, be abolished)?

Female-only sports exist to favor women. Parasports exist for a similar reason. If you can't prove to be part of either group, one would just have to take your word for it.

If a random guy said "I'm a woman," would that have to be enough?

<comment><USER3> > If a random guy said "I'm a woman," would that have to be enough?

yes:

[https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track- fie...](https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field- competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294)

<comment><USER4> Wow did not realize these open gender policies have resulted in such outcomes. I guess the only option is to remove men/womens altogether and have them complete against all sexes.

Another option is to have a separate category for them or many seperate categories.

<comment><USER5> I think generally all competing against all is the logical conclusion to this mess. Biological males competing against females isn't fair, nor are biological females on male hormones. Making a trans category could be seen as insulting/outing, I think, and probably wouldn't have many competitors.

So outside of examining and testing every single person, seems easier to just have them all compete together. Have weight classes where it makes sense to.

<comment><USER6> That would mean the end of competitive sports for women. For many women and girl athletes, it would mean the end of their ambitions, the canceling of a lifetime of rigorous training and hope. Just so a few men who can't compete against other men can bring home trophies.

<comment><USER5> Everyone wants equality until it affects them negatively then, it seems.

Being a smartass aside, I don't think it will be the end of competitive sports for women. I think we'll see new sports emerge, which would be pretty interesting.

<comment><USER7> There's essentially no sports where women can compete on the same level as men. The differences go beyond strength.

For a man and woman the same weight: Men have stronger bones, much higher oxygen capacity, faster reaction time, better motion tracking, higher fatigue tolerance, better aerobic endurance, higher pain threshold.

An interesting development would be co-ed professional sports with teams that have a fixed number of men and women. I think this is the best we could hope for as far as equality in sports

<comment><USER5> But you end up back in the same position. You have a 5 person team requirement, 3 men and 2 women. Where do you put trans?

<comment><USER8> In the gender that the transitioning person identifies with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a saying that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Likewise, I propose that the best argument in favor of having these categories is five seconds (/minutes/hours/days depending on the sport) of watching a mixed group of 'elite' athletes (of all genders, disabilities or lack thereof) competing with each other.

</comment><comment><USER10> Ross Tucker from The Science of Sport has written extensively on this issue. It's worth reading to understand the medical and performance issues.

[https://sportsscientists.com/thread/caster- semenya/](https://sportsscientists.com/thread/caster-semenya/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Eliminating separate divisions for women, as many here advocate, effectively means shutting women out of many competitive sports. How is that that a good thing? My daughter, in high school, knows that she cannot compete with the best male volleyball players and has said so. Why shouldn't she be able to compete?

</comment><comment><USER12> I am curious, if you divided by weight tiers do you think there would still be a significant athletic advantage for men over women in sports like sprinting?

<comment><USER6> You don't have to guess about these things. Just look up the stats. Without sex segregation, there are no competitive sports for women.

<comment><USER13> I agree 100%. Unfortunately you severely undermine your argument by referring to transwomen as "men who can't compete with other men and want to take home a few trophies."

I am frankly irritated by identity politics but your approach of misgendering transgender athletes and asserting that anyone would go through all the pain and disruption of transitioning to another sex and getting permanent surgical modifications to their bodies because they are "Men who can't compete with other men" comes across as disgusting and dehumanizing. As if transwomen are craven losers who have thought of this crazy scam to win in athletic competitions. You're going to make people who agree with your main argument re: women needing their own leagues "back away slowly" because you're spouting really disgusting misconceptions about trans people in the process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe it's time to stop separating sports competitors into binary genders.

We already separate people into performance levels - why not do that irrespective of 'gender'? People would still be able to be 'top' of their performance level, it just wouldn't be called a 'woman' level or 'man' level anymore.

<comment><USER15> There's the reality that there's considerable althetic differences at the highest levels.

By not grouping at the source you'll end up with almost all women being strictly lower in the rankings, which is undesirable for obvious reasons.

Not to mention the deluge of articles decrying sexism when reality is getting in the way.

<comment><USER14> If people really want to differentiate between men and women for some reason I can't understand they could still say themselves 'top person identifying as a woman'. Just don't make it part of the official system so other people can ignore it if they want.

You could be the 'only woman in level 4 sprinting'.

And wouldn't it be better for women - if they're able to push beyond other women and also compete with men? There would certainly be men in lower tiers than the top tier women.

<comment><USER16> I don't see how it would be better for women. If Serena Williams is in a league 3 levels below Roger Federer, playing with no name male players [1], what would that do to her star-power, endorsements, contracts?

[1] [http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET- POSTS/November-2017-(1)/T...](http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET- POSTS/November-2017-\(1\)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just add "Y" and "no Y" to the criteria. We can handle having competitions with age, weight, ability, and formerly gender.. Just add Y chromosome, and then no prejudice, or assumption, and nothing to take offense to.</comment>


Taxes for employee stock purchase in a startup - Advice? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I'm about to join a startup as the first employee (besides the founder). As part of my package I will get equity. Additionally, we've talked about establishing a policy to transfer salary to equity each month.
I was wondering what the tax laws would be on this. If, for instance, I have a monthly income of $5000 and want to convert $2000 into equity, will I have to pay taxes for $5000 or $3000 of income?
What else should I know? From what I've heard, for this to even be possible we'd have to have an external valuation of the company's worth. Any good links or advice would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> I think everyone is giving you really good advise here so I am going to take a different tact which is to look at this from the owner's perspective (i.e., the founder).

My guess is that he believes that he/she has invested quite a bit already and that this is his/her company and not yours. He needs you as an employee and he is treating you as such.

But he is not willing to pay you market value so he is deducting $2K from your pay in exchange for a small piece of the company at an inflated price that at the moment only he can justify.

What makes this one a brain-dead offer is that he is asking you to pay tax on your monthly generous gift.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your skepticism about the deal, but not because of taxes. Handling the taxes in a situation like this is a pain in the ass.

The odds of any startup succeeding in any business climate (let alone ours) is low. As employee #1 in the company, you'd want that $2k to be getting a founder's multiple. I don't know what that number is, but my mind jumps to 5-10x. So each time you're getting $2k worth of stock, you want it backed with a story that in 2 years makes you $10-$20k.

The question in this post doesn't contain any numbers (revenue, projections, go-to-market, funding plans), which makes me think that conversation hasn't happened yet with the founder. So what I think is, taking this deal is basically shoveling $2k/mo into a black hole.

I've been in this exact situation twice. I accepted the deal both times. The first time I came out about $20k behind where I would have been with straight salary. The second time, my "investment" made a little better than 25x, which set me up for my own first startup. So it's not like I think this is a rip- off; I just think you're leaving too much up to chance.

Finally, I don't like how Denny is wording this response. $60k/yr is a healthy pre-revenue startup paycheck. It's not rockstar comp, but it's not a rip-off either. If you're getting solid W2 wages, I think it's hard to say that the business "owes" you anything outside of what you can negotiate.

<comment><USER2> But he is not getting $60K. He is getting $36K, or $18 an hour if he works just 40 hours a week. I suspect he works at least twice that which basically says that he will be working below minimum wage. My point is that he is being treated as an employee and as an employee, he is being cheated.

<comment><USER3> He's getting $36k if he takes the deal. We agree, he shouldn't take the deal. We disagree that he's being cheated; right now, it just looks like a poor deal.

<comment><USER2> I think it is a poor deal not because of the money or the tax consequence. I think it is a poor deal because he is being treated as an employee and not as a co-founder.

Entrepreneurs often preceive their net worth based on how much effort they have put in and not on how much more it will take to get to the end goal. So it is not the details that made this such a bad deal but the assumption.

<comment><USER3> He's not a cofounder. He makes 60k a year (or 36k, if he accepts a bad deal). I'm pretty sure both of us have been bona fide cofounders with employees, and that we both know the difference; we don't talk about our monthly paycheck, because we eat last.

<comment><USER2> joshhart: If you are still reading the comments, you need to decide if you are a co-founder or an employee.

If you believe you are an employee, then structure a better deal that is more fair which basically says that you are getting paid at market value ($3K now and $2K as deferred compensation which is essentially a senior loan to the company that the owner needs to pay you back in the future).

Then at the same time, negotiate a stock plan which you can purchase upfront for just a few hundred dollars which the owner can buy back if you do not perform.

However, my own advise is that being employee #1, you are essentially a co- founder (because of the current down market, there isn't going to be much upsides for a long long time).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Denny,

I appreciate the advice. Honestly, I believe myself to be an employee. I'll be making a pretty decent salary and getting a few percent of equity upfront. The founder has worked very hard on the produce for about 15 months or so. I probably didn't give enough information earlier but I'm not sure exactly what I can or can't say legally.

I also don't think I really understood how ESPPs worked before. We'd revalue the company and I'd be able to purchase at a reduced rate. I don't think that's a bad deal, especially for a product and monetization model I really believe in.

<comment><USER2> That sounds great. We are ALL on your side. Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you are paid in stock it's still taxable at the value assigned.In your example a $3K salary and $2K of stock would be taxed at $5K. You are probably better off paying for restricted stock at a very low price that reflects the current state of the startup. In other words negotiate for your % of ownership, pay for it now at "today's price" for the company (and execute the 83(b)), and have your stock subject to buyback restrictions that are on a vesting schedule (such that your true ownership of that % may take three to five years).

See [http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2008/02/15/what-is- an-83...](http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2008/02/15/what-is- an-83b-election/)

</comment><comment><USER5> You should work with a lawyer to do it right.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but just went through this process...) If the company has no established value, then when it is incorporated the common shares are assigned an arbitrary, very small par value (like 0.0001 cents each).

The company then sells those shares to the founders. So if the company issued 5M shares, and you were going to get 20%, you'd write a cheque to buy 1M of those shares from the company for $100, and that's exactly what they're worth for tax purposes. If this is restricted stock (ie. subject to vesting) then you need to make an 83(b) election within 30 days of acquiring the stock.

<comment><AUTHOR> To address a previous comment made, I will be getting some upfront equity. This is more of an "incentive to reinvest in the company" kind of deal.

Referring back to my example - say I'm usually paid 5k/month but I decide I only need 3k so I ask for 3k and X number of shares. Those shares are assigned .0001 cents since the company has no established value so I now have $3020 in income. Shouldn't I just have to declare $3020 worth of income and the shares are now subject to capital gains?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Make sure you learn about the rules around the 83(b) election for your stock.

</comment><comment><USER7> The advice people are giving you is way too complex. Here is the simple answer: Don't worry about taxes in this case.

1) An 83b is irrelevant for this problem (you aren't vesting over time, thus there is no chance of a large increase in the share price before you get your grant)

2) You _aren't_ getting $2000 a month in stock. You are getting what he is saying is a fair equivalent of $2000 a month. You might have to report a couple bucks a month in income to the IRS, but it will be negligible because the real value of anything he gives you will be basically zero on paper

3) You pay taxes on the market rate of anything you get..keep that in mind.

4) If you really don't want to worry, don't get a stock or options grant, just "purchase" your shares from the company. At a fraction of a cent each, the shares are essentially free, so just write the guy a check. Since you bought them you won't be taxed until you have a gain.

<comment><USER8> > 1) An 83b is irrelevant for this problem (you aren't vesting over time, thus > there is no chance of a large increase in the share price before you get > your grant)

How do we know that he is purchasing all his stock up front with no restrictions?

If he is, he can quit now and get a job that pays him market rate while keeping all the stock. Somehow I doubt that that's the case.

If he's purchasing stock each month (or getting the right to keep stock that he's been granted, that is, repurchase rights are expiring), 83(b) is relevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a little odd for a tiny private tech startup to be talking about monthly stock purchases rather than a larger upfront grant (of options or stock) that vests over time. The latter seems much more common.

You owe tax on income when it is received -- whether that income is cash or stock. So in your 'for instance', you'd owe on $5K each month. It's as if they paid you $5K cash, on which you owe taxes, and then you decided to buy $2K of stock.

In many cases, you would rather pay for your full grant at the earliest possible date, before your own sweat equity starts making the stock more expensive. The company protects itself by having the stock subject to vesting if you leave early -- but then you should make absolutely sure to do a prompt "83(b) election" so that you don't owe taxes at each vesting increment.

A good startup lawyer could be telling the founder and you all this, and more. If the plan is for this to grow big, and there will be other employees on stock plans, doing it right is worth the cost.

</comment><comment><USER10> [http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/investments- an...](http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/investments-and-rental- property/5595.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I've looked at some stuff, but I don't know if there's any difference for a startup. At a big company there is a specified market price - at a startup without VC there isn't.

<comment><USER11> What percentage of ownership are you looking at as employee #1? What is the industry range for this? Does it vary by how much capital and effort are already invested by founders?</comment></comment></comment>


The 41 Books Mark Zuckerberg Has Recommended on Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://news.slashdot.org/story/20/09/13/1255209/the-41-books-mark-zuckerberg-has-recommended-on-facebook <comment><USER2> I was really hoping to see "Fantastic Meats and How To Smoke Them" in there.

<comment><USER3> oh this is good haha, hope others get this reference

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think, given the damage Facebook has done to our civilization, that nothing that guy does is worth discussing, other than how to undo what he has done.

I really don't care what book he thinks is good, or not. He's a bad source of data.

<comment><USER5> What has he done beyond reveal humanity for what it is?</comment></comment>