Everything You Already Know About SEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.kadavy.net/blog/posts/everything-you-already-know-about-seo/ <comment><USER2> Anecdotal evidence:

My band's website is the highest ranked page for the search term "red blue yellow".

No meta headers, no keywords, no <strong>, no <h1>... nothing, not even <html> or <body> tags. In fact, the only HTML is a <pre> tag containing ASCII art and a link to our Facebook page. I mean this quite literally, view the source.

However, it has been linked to from other sites quite frequently in recent weeks.

It would seem that Google doesn't penalize invalid HTML, or even pages that have only the most basic HTML.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, wouldn't say they _penalize_ , but since your site actually is at the URL of redyellowblue.com, and there are other sites (probably with some authority) linking to it, it doesn't surprise me that it would rank highly. Additionally, I doubt there is much competition for this keyphrase. It has a global monthly search volume of 1,600.

<comment><USER4> I should not that there is no way in hell this has a global monthly search volume of 1,600. Google Adwords lists it at 1,600 probably, which means that the actual numbers are more like 100.

You have to remember Google is inflating these numbers for their own gain - being increased PPC spend, of course.

Who in their right mind would search for "red yellow blue"?

<comment><USER5> > Who in their right mind would search for "red yellow blue"?

People searching for the band, the "primary color triad in a standard artist's color wheel"[1], or maybe an artist entering random colors because they're bored and want to see what they can find. Since I just learned about the band, I'm sure there are many other reasons that I haven't thought of.

I'm surprised it's not more. Can you substantiate your claims?

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RYB_color_model> (second result)

<comment><USER4> OK, you may be right. Didn't really think about that. Still, seems like a strange way to search for the RYB color model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So the author makes the supposition that Flash contributes to low ranking (in that the content is not indexed). Google most definitely crawls flash (in some fashion) at this point...

I'm curious, does anyone have any idea how that content ranks compared to good old fashioned mark-up? Is it 1:1? Is it harder to rank with flash content? I really have no idea.

<comment><USER7> SEO for flash is very complex, mostly based on tips and tricks. The easiest way to go is external links with anchors +the basics html optimisation. If you are serious about it, Adobe has partnered with the search engines to make flash content discoverable (Ichabod), some peoples (Damien Bianchi) suggest developers to create XML and video sitemaps along with an HTML sitemap for websites, reading this article may help you : <http://www.adobe.com/devnet/seo/articles/checklist_ria.html> , I hope this helps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [citation needed]

Seriously though, despite how anecdotal this page is, it gave me some food for thought. Does Google really care about how far in the future I have registered my domains? I'd love a source on that.

<comment><USER9> A citation would require a source with knowledge of Google's algorithm. Some of the best research that I've found on SEO is SEOmozs Search Engine Ranking Factors: <http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors>

It's based on a survey of SEO professionals/experts, which leaves a bit to be desired, but I still think the conclusions are on point.

<comment><USER10> Why is page load time listed on that page? I thought I read recently that's a new thing google is doing?

<comment><USER3> Google had hinted before this year that they would use speed. This article is from December, but perhaps there's something earlier: [http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/11/13/google-page- spe...](http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/11/13/google-page-speed-may-be- a-ranking-factor-in-2010)

Still, Google said it will only affect 1% of searches.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Agonies of Picking a Product Name (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fogcreek.com/the-agonies-of-picking-a-product-name/ <comment><USER2> Agree that the bias is to overestimate the power of a name but disagree with the notions that a) the name doesn't matter that much and b) the wasteful process of going through a ton of names to arrive at something close to what they started with was not actually necessary for coming up with and feeling satisfied with that name in the first place. I'm pretty sure Hippolist wouldn't have worked as well as Trello in a quantifiably material way.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _" In the end we should have just had Michael do the whole name picking in > thirty minutes and been done with it."_

I think this overlooks the value of having everyone feel that they were involved/heard. Maybe going through this process at least once is a kind of rite of passage. Next time around, no-one would be as wedded to their ideas and the process would be quicker.

</comment><comment><USER4> Agree on the spirit of the post. The name really doesn't matter as much. But there are considerations to think about nonetheless.

For example, is the name's domain name available? Can the domain name be misrepresented? eg. expertsexchange.com (Experts Exchange vs Expert Sex Change) How about social media names (eg. twitter.com/<name you want>)?

I think nowadays, considerations on names really should centre on availability of the desired name across domain names, social media pages, and avoiding existing trademarks.

Incidentally I blogged about this recently: [http://simononstartups.com/blog/2015/05/31/9-lessons-for- fin...](http://simononstartups.com/blog/2015/05/31/9-lessons-for-finding-a- good-startup-domain-name/)

PS. People criticizing Twitter pointed out at the beginning how "twit" or "tw*t" were bad names to associate with the product too.

<comment><USER5> I'm in two minds whether or not to consider if the domain is available when choosing a name.

On the one hand I don't think it should be a factor, on the other hand I know I'll be checking anyway.

<comment><USER6> Why don't you think it should be a factor?

I think it's pretty much the only factor. Domain name. Not too weird. Less than 10 characters. Done.

<comment><USER5> Because a business shouldn't constrained to fit an available domain. Dropbox originally registered getdropbox.com because dropbox.com wasn't available. If they'd worried about an available domain name they wouldn't have ended up with something nearly as fitting.

<comment><USER7> Also there are a bunch of top-level domains available and ever growing. So availability shouldn't be a big issue.

People should be more concerned about not choosing common words. Mozilla and Google can pull off Rust and Go, but you probably can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >We ended up with a name very similar to the one we started with, one that all of us like just fine, and one which is just going to be what people call our new, supremely free, project management app. I think everyone would have gotten used to Hippolist too, but it doesn't matter, because it's called Trello now.

>In the end we should have just had Michael do the whole name picking in thirty minutes and been done with it.

I mean... successful names DO imply what the product is. "Google" is similar to the English language term for staring in wonder. "Facebook" is taken from the existing name for books of college students. "MyFitnessPal," clunky as the name and product are, is a pretty informative name. If you rattled off a list of these names to a grandmother, chances are that she could divine the purpose of each website.

I'm a huge fan of Trello, and I think the name works well the same way that "Xerox" worked well -- because most people really don't have another word for kanban systems or photocopies, and the product name suddenly defines the category. But unless you're churning out revolutionary new products rather than refining existing ideas, I think it makes sense for your name to in some way characterize your product.

<comment><USER9> Trello is a meaningless name. It evokes nothing. It sounds like a portmanteau of "trellis" and "mellow". Even though I've read about the product, or service, or whatever it is, I have no idea what it does because the name has all the sticking power of wet teflon (another meaningless name that was successfully marketed, demonstrating how little names matter).

<comment><USER10> It's not entirely meaningless, though. It brings to mind 'friendly' and 'fuzzy', and 'dynamic' in a way that 'Xerox' does not. The way a word sounds definitely carries some level of 'meaning'.

Whether this was intentional, or whether it plays a big role in Trello's success is a different story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Names are really hard. We spent a while trying to come up with a name for our skateboarding app, and settled on Hardware (abbreviated as HDWR). "Hardware" is what skaters call the nuts and bolts that attach the trucks to the deck.

I'm still not totally sold on it, but we haven't been able to come up with anything better.

</comment><comment><USER12> There's a very similar tale behind the name Toy Story.

</comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if this submission was influenced by the post about CockroachDB, which was on the front page and seems to have vanished.

<comment><USER3> It's still there (currently at number 7).

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9660339](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9660339)

<comment><USER13> Whoops, my bad. What a terrible title; I completely missed it.

<comment><USER3> Title comes from their blog post, which does make sense in that context (it's their first post). Doesn't work out of context though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's even worse for non-native speakers.

</comment><comment><USER15> And then there was Java. Remember that first gold rush of derivative Java related product names?

</comment><comment><USER16> A bad name can kill a good product and hinder a great product. Example: Diaspora, Deus Ex.</comment>


Debate over which is better for CS majors - liberal arts college, or engineering school? - <AUTHOR> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/15/1747257

<comment><USER2> I transfered from a technical/engineering school (1,500 students) to a more general state university (20,000) where computer science was not an important and the average student's ability was lower.

The real important difference was the curriculum. The state school had a language requirement (14 credit hours) tacked right on; CS is located in the Arts&Science school. It meant I couldn't take more technical electives.

The most important thing about undergrad years is what you can do when you leave, whether it came from a class or hours spent in self-directed study, as I did.

It meant a lot to potential employers when I could say that I have submitted (small) patches to the linux kernel, or wrote my own mini-kernel or compiler. Try writing a thread library or a nifty little VM, or something that is unusual and will stand out.

</comment><comment><USER3> While I strongly believe that an engineering school is going to give one a much stronger CS foundation, what ultimately was most important in my undergrad and after was doggedly pursuing internship and real-world experience opportunities. Of course, going to a good engineering school will mean these opportunities are more readily available.

If you work hard at it, you could have nearly four years of relevant industry experience by the time you graduate from college, making you a much more attractive candidate to a company compared to contemporaries who have no practical experience.

</comment><comment><USER4> Liberal arts school.

My reasoning is that first, you will be exposed to a broader curriculum, which will ideally make you more creative. Second, when going into college, you usually do not have a good idea of what you want to do (even if you think so now), so best put yourself in a position where you are giving yourself options. Third, it's good to be around people who do not think in the same way as you. Segmenting yourself away with a bunch of people who are more likely to think like you will only lead to groupthink. And fourth, if you plan on meeting girls at college, engineering school will leave you miserably disappointed.

<comment><USER5> Many will argue that going for engineering gives you far _more_ options with what you can do after.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I went to a liberal arts school, and I mildly regret it. It may have been better if it at least had an engineering school that I could have taken a few classes with.

Although this could be a case of greener grass syndrome. I wouldn't have gotten to try Theatre, Music, and Philosophy before settling on Math and discovering Economics if I weren't at a liberal arts school.

My advice to everybody is that there is no One Right Way. Only you can weigh the options in front of you and make the best choice.

For what it's worth, I'm going back to grad school to get an engineering degree. I might not miss out on anything after all.

</comment><comment><USER7> I was in the Liberal Arts CS program at my school and, with 20/20 hindsight, am absolutely sure I made the correct decision (for me).

Being in the LA college at my school (we had both Engineering and LA schools on the same campus -- you could take CS from either side) I was exposed to a much broader range of topics that the rigid and intense engineering curriculum wouldn't have allowed me the be exposed to. I took a lot of Human Factors/Design courses in my last 2 years which gave me a new perspective on the CS that I'd been learning.

The takeaway for me was this: being able to see your CS degree in context of a broad range of other seemingly disparate topics ensures that you aren't narrowly defining what the degree can do for you. You can apply the degree creatively to a broad range of problems that aren't necessarily even taught in the CS department (or, for that matter, the Engineering school).

</comment><comment><USER8> Whichever school it is, it better be a BS. You don't want to know how lame it is to explain why you got a BA in CS.

<comment><USER9> Wouldn't this depend entirely on who considers your application or interviews you? If so, what you might be suggesting is that, on average, significantly more people that are likely to consider you for CS employment will be concerned by a BA than not. Have any evidence for that, or was this a personal anecdote?

<comment><USER8> I didn't say it was a problem regarding people favoring BS over BA. UC Berkeley's CS program results in a BA, but I doubt there are any people out there that question the legitimacy of Berkeley CS. I'm just saying that it's lame when you have to explain to _non-technical_ people why you got a BA in CS, while their silly undergrad Business Administration degree resulted in a BS :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It depends on the school. A good CS program at a liberal arts college is better than a bad CS program at an engineering school. However, I'm unqualified to comment as the CS program at my liberal arts school only had two decent courses, so I switched to math.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd argue that the more important measure is who your classmates are, but where their ambitions lie.

I went to a prestigious engineering school with high-quality instruction and top-notch students. However, the professional culture of the school was very much defined by a finance-heavy recruitment culture. Very few graduates of the school go on to do engineering, and thus the peer culture there doesn't contribute to advancing one's career in the sciences.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm in the process of switching from a tech school to a liberal arts school.. My main reason is this: At the tech school, I'm constantly surrounded by computers. Now, after 2 years in, I'm getting pretty tired of that... to the point where I don't want to do any programming anymore.

Burnout is a very real thing for me.. and I'd much rather not be hating my field of study by the end of school.

</comment><comment><USER13> Both, if possible. Plenty of places combine top-notch engineering with top- notch liberal arts schools.

</comment><comment><USER5> Well, better for their career or better for their dating life?:)

<comment><USER14> Actually, given the choice between an engineering school and a LA school assuming gender ratio parity, engineering schools win hands down in terms of just how nice and interesting the gals are, theres no contest there. Sadly, I chose the wrong one myself.

<comment><USER5> > assuming gender ratio parity

Oh my, haha. At what schools does this occur?

<comment><USER14> mit</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google removes all Danish music from YouTube - <AUTHOR> https://www.koda.dk/about-us/press-release-google-removes-all-danish-music-from-youtube <comment><USER2> As in so many disputes, the parties (koda.dk here) will claim this is about principles and yada yada yada, "Google removes all Danish music from Youtube", etc.

You can be guaranteed though, it's always just about the price and how the one party doesn't want to pay it, and the other party doesn't want to change it.

ESPN doesn't want to pay MLB, Comcast doesn't want to pay local stations, app developers don't want to pay Apple. It goes on and on.

The article has the headline "On the evening of Thursday 30 July, Google announced that they will soon remove all Danish music content on YouTube".

Yet in the next paragraphs, it goes on to describe a change in terms promulgated by Google after a treaty expiration, and that "Of course, Koda cannot accept these terms".

Well then, this is a decision by Google, and then a decision by Koda isn't it?

Yet they make it sound like Google is the big bad entity. Isn't that convenient.

<comment><USER3> Google uses their dominant position to ask a reduction of 70%. How do you want Koda to accept those terms? Why would artists work with Koda if they don't push back on such a ridiculous demand? It's their job to say no here.

<comment><USER4> It's also such an obvious lie - I can trivially find lots of danish music on youtube. The music that has been taken down is the music that has not been licensed through the copyright society at the price they want.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7sK5OiJHHQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7sK5OiJHHQ)

Do you not see the difference between a headline that is a bit more honest - Google removes unlicensed music? Or google and danish copyright society cannot agree to terms?

<comment><AUTHOR> I had originally used the title of the document which is "PRESS RELESE: ..." but it has since been altered. I had not removed it because I thought it made it clearer that this did not come from a neutral party. As it is a press release from one of the parties in this issue.

Also, I do not know where you are from, but I am currently residing in Denmark and that music video you have linked is only accessible with YouTube Premium. As far as know this is only an issue when accessing the music from Denmark.

<comment><USER5> Ask the author why... They'll tell you that these "music associations" are government enforced rackets that benefit the big artists alone. (No shocker here!)

<comment><USER4> It's not that bad. In the US there are 5 PROs which is better than a lot of places. And it does make licensing for users of music easier to have these societies.

That said, in Europe these are more like monopolies. Still not bad it will be interesting to see if Youtube at some point starts charging for distribution.

Spotify does this with sponsored songs - you can pay to get distribution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Musicians need to wake up and realize that there is almost no money in recordings. Recordings are advertisements for performances. You make money from shows and concerts.

You can't charge tech companies more than they themselves are making from the music. Just because they're big companies doesn't mean they can squeeze water from a rock. Your music is worth much less to them than you assume.

<comment><USER7> But is that reasonable? Shouldn't the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

What if you can't put on concerts, like it's the case right now, do your work then become worthless?

Honestly I think the issue is the record labels. The need to seriously reduce their cut and let the musicians keep the bulk of the royalties.

It's a little concerning that a Youtube channel with maybe 500 - 1000 Patreon supports and few ads can be a living, but musicians need to tour, to make a profit. That seems to indicate, to me at least, that Youtube may not be the problem.

<comment><USER8> > Shouldn't the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their > music?

You mean release on [https://bandcamp.com](https://bandcamp.com) ?

<comment><USER9> Exactly this. Bandcamp's straightforward, egalitarian deal is exactly what any artist below the superstar level needs.

Put your stuff out, set your price, handle your own publicity, Bandcamp takes their cut. That's it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They should be happy. Google exited their market. Now they can capture all the customers with their own platform and keep all the money.

<comment><USER11> You do realize that high resolution video hosting and serving is about the most expensive thing you can do on the internet? Just see Vimeo's fee schedule.

<comment><USER12> As so many things, it gets a lot cheaper once you are a monopoly. Can't very well not peer with YouTube.

<comment><USER13> It's still really expensive.

<comment><USER14> Didn't Google brag about investing 2 _billion_ dollars/year in just their network a few years back ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Would be funny if the combined resources of three countries end up creating a strong YouTube competitor.

The world needs a YouTube competitor sooner than later.

<comment><USER16> Creating a competitor is simple enough, making the video from that platform appear above a video from the YouTube on the Google search is what would determine its fate.

Then again, if anyone can make Google accountable it's EU.

<comment><USER17> What competitors are out there already? If the problem is popularity I'll contribute by searching there first, then YouTube.

<comment><USER18> Not exactly competitors, but today I mostly use Nebula and CuriosityStream instead of Youtube when I want long-form bedtime videos. Both are paid, unfortunately, but for $20 a year I think it's more than worth it.

<comment><USER19> As far as I understand, Nebula is also co-owned by content creators themselves. Also, they see direct revenue from subscriptions.

<comment><USER18> I had no idea! That makes me happy, as I want to support them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> No sympathy for music licensing bodies. Lacks any details about previous deals or how those compare world wide.

<comment><USER21> The weird thing is that licensing bodies, like writers guilds et al, are supposed to represent the financial interests of artists and other folks involved in the process.

They've built a reputation for being stodgy and backwards because of their ham-fisted handling of DRM/piracy/mp3 sales, but insisting that YouTube funnels real money back to artists is exactly what they ought to be doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Koda wants to have their cake and eat it too. Seems like Google is right in this case.

<comment><USER23> Koda is wrong for _not_ wanting to take a 70% cut in revenue? I wonder if you'd be open to the idea of a 70% pay cut? Probably not right? Now what if your employer was the only employer where you live?

<comment><USER24> Well the problem here is also what they want money for.

Youtube pays the same in these two cases

\- Someone watches the newest taylor swift music video. \- I upload a video of my kid doing something funny where taylor swift is accidentally played in the background.

Should the music industry be payed the same in both cases?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is difficult to interpret without the details of the original agreement, which are not mentioned in the post. If google was paying more than the ad revenue on the content, then not extending the agreement would be reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER26> Sounds like a very aggressive negotiating tactic on Google's part.

They're scared that if the Nordic agreement succeeds, they'd gradually be bid up on content pricing everywhere.

Koda and the Nordic group are not necessarily in a weak position. But might be in an even stronger position if they had an alternative video/ streaming service to recommend, which paid them higher content partner rates.

It will only take one content provider to hold out for long enough, yet still be an attractive market at higher content rates, to break Google's embargo. Good luck.

<comment><USER27> How is it aggressive? If an agreement to do Thing is necessary, and you don't have an agreement, you just stop doing the Thing.

Koda is just starting from a weaker position than YouTube.

<comment><USER28> The article mentions that a temporary extension to the already existing agreement is normal and expected during negotiations. So Google not doing it, presumably to apply pressure on the negotiations is agressive.

>Koda is just starting from a weaker position than YouTube.

Ideally negotiations should be between equals. If this is just Google throwing its e dick around then they need to get a few more antitrust fines.

<comment><USER5> KODA is literally a government sanctioned monopoly.

<comment><AUTHOR> KODA have not been that really the last 6ish years and by law they have not been it the last 4. There was a EU law in 2014 that made a law against it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> With all this anti-Google sentiments, I find Youtube absolutely priceless for all the things I've gained for free from it from so much education, DIY tips, MIT lectures on Thermodynamics, live streaming from ISS and thousands and thousands of amazing things that have enriched my life.

I would pay the shit out of Youtube if it ever made it mandatory to pay for it. I would pay $200 a month just to access the historical archive of all this knowledge even if they stopped uploading new content.

Youtube has enriched society on a monumental scale. I hate big companies and their monopoly position but the level of entitlement in this thread is absurdly unfair. The world would be significantly worse without YouTube.

<comment><USER30> Are you paying for their ad-free premium experience today? It's $10/month, much lesser than the $200 you are willing to pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Hard to judge without knowing how much more Koda wants compared to other content providers. Anyone know this?

</comment><comment><USER32> Hardly heard any Danish music ever. Reading reviews, listening and downloading now :-)

<comment><USER33> One of the classics. Gasoline - This is my life

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqd- JcjQo8I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqd-JcjQo8I)

<comment><USER34> ...not available. Isn't that the point of this thread?

<comment><USER35> Only blocked in some countries, the video works fine in most of Europe, Canada, Australia, South America, and India.

Map: [https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=Jqd- JcjQo8I](https://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=Jqd-JcjQo8I)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Somewhat off topic: I live in fear that one day, I'll wake to find that youtube pulled all the live shows and music that isn't on AM/Spotify due to neglect or licensing BS. Or even worse, that they decide to make their ads unblockable by stitching them in.

Solving this problem seems overwhelmingly complex: On one hand, it is against youtube's ToS to download (even for archival), but on the other, youtube (and the majority of the uploaders) don't have the rights for that content in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER37> Two rentiers fighting it out for the biggest slice of the pie.

</comment><comment><USER38> For reference, there is a lot of relevant financial background information in their (Koda's) Annual Reports:

[https://www.koda.dk/about-us/annual-reports-transparency- rep...](https://www.koda.dk/about-us/annual-reports-transparency-report-and- analyses)

</comment><comment><USER39> In the long term, I think platforms will find that consumers care more about content than the platforms. It's just as easy to watch a video on Vimeo or a private site as YouTube, and the quality is usually equal, and sometimes better. Platforms have some lock-in due to networking effects and content storage, but for businesses built around getting eyeballs on unique content (like music), that means basically nothing.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm certainly one of the rare people who planned (for the next week!) to take youtube music and premium just to be sure to have access to all danish song but finally nope.

No I'm not danish but when you like different languages and commercial hip hop,danish hip hop is not that bad !

<comment><AUTHOR> The music is still accessible outside of Denmark, at least for now, not sure if that will change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I am residing in Denmark. Since today, I have not been able to listen many songs in my YT playlists as "this content is unavailable in your conrtry".

Might this not only be about Noridic artists, but rights of musicians in Nordic contries in general?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is artists who have their rights administrated by KODA in Denmark. It may also include things like Danish songwriters as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> It looks like this only applies to Koda members. From their website, it doesn't look like all Danish musicians are members of Koda, so the title is misleading.

</comment><comment><USER43> These musicians can just build their own compeeting video platform. At least they are very keen to present such an argument when discussing social media censorship.

</comment><comment><USER44> _reduce the payment provided to composers and songwriters for YouTube's use of music by almost 70%_

Yes but pirating is bad.

</comment><comment><USER45> this is a press release, perhaps the link should be replaced with a neutral party: [http://cphpost.dk/?p=117112](http://cphpost.dk/?p=117112)

</comment><comment><USER46> Put shortly ... The C.V. of Google, is something Google's decision-makers would be wise to "include" ...

Right now, people (Musicians and music-lovers) in the Nordic Countries, have got an experience, that should have been avoided, and that can be "neutralized" by Google's change of course.

C.V ...what to be remembered by and being proud of : \- like "we did build this country, this company"... \- right now, it's the opposite: We Ruined Musicians Lifes, and We Ruined Music ... \- If this is, what Google wants to be remembered by, then well ...

Rewriting history : \- like Trump and especially eastern leaders/rulerships, one can of course always "make it all fit and shine" ... like Trump has been doing, again and again...

The Trump way of doing things : \- This "Tank-like" way of acting and dealing with other living people, running over ... makes Google's policy look a lot like Trump's... \- That is: Resistence (or not "100% obediance from Nordi Koda/Musicians) => a "Trumpish" reaction: YOU ARE DEAD, YOU ARE NOT-WORTHY - AND "YOU ARE FIRED" / OUT OF THE GAME !!! ... \- that is: Being the chef/owner, running things in a "cartoon-like cathegorial way" ... in which empathy-etc is 100% "put-aside / cut-off".

My Hope ... is that Google will "look inside", re-evaluate, and rethink their "quick decision", and then take-in and include the different perspectives ... And, in this way, I urge Google to get inspired by people like John-Robert- Lewis, who changed the "standard way of doing things and acting" in the 50's and 60's ... changed this peacefully, and in a time-long proces made the Leaders and people RETHINK their decisions, policies, and behaviour .... The same I am hoping, that Google will do here (and other dominant companies (and governments) will do ...

In this, there is a "rethink money" factor. Instead of "making money", then spend them where they are needed .... If, for instance, Google wants to AID MUSIC, then Google could give (enough) money to the Musiciens, to make "vision" happen in real life.... (so Please! Google, rethink and get back on the right track - and do something (good) that I am sure you want to be remembered by - and that fits your Officiel Image !!!)

</comment><comment><USER47> Wait, does that mean no King Diamond?

<comment><USER48> King Diamond is on Roadrunner (1986 - 1990) and Metal Blade (1995 - now).[1] Actually looks like he's re-releasing his old stuff on Metal Blade as well.[2] (Tempting to pick it up on Vinyl when I already have the original CDs.)

Anyway, those are US labels and distributed by for instance WMG outside the US. I would assume those have nothing to do with that Koda group; Metal Blade even has uploaded entire albums of his on YouTube.[3]

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

[2] [https://www.kingdiamondcoven.com/news](https://www.kingdiamondcoven.com/news)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_6oMRtc118&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_6oMRtc118&feature=youtu.be&t=91)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I know zero about Danish music. Please, tell me the good music I'll be missing. BTW, I don't like electronic music.

<comment><USER50> They have a good heavy metal scene. Groups like Volbeat, Pretty Maids, etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Time to switch to Spotify...

</comment><comment><USER52> The site is apparently in the HoD phase - could I ask a polite TL;DR?

<comment><USER53> (HoD = "Hug of Death" \- please don't use obscure TLAs* - it makes people feel excluded)

(* three letter acronyms)

EDIT - and it means something like "site down because it's been linked to from here and can't handle the traffic)

EDIT2 - "tl;dr" is at least easy to google...

<comment><USER52> I didn't think that one was obscure _here_. Point taken.

<comment><USER54> fwiw I've seen the term "hug of death" term used for years but that did not cross my mind when I saw "HoD".

<comment><USER55> My first thought was "Hood of Defiance".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Not sure why this isn't topping HN</comment>


New Bloomberg Terminal Keyboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/professional/hardware/ <comment><USER2> The majority of complaints here:

\- Ergonomics sucks!

\- I can't re-map caps lock to be escape, what trash!

\- This is so old!

\- Too expensive!

\- Dell makes cheaper monitors!

\- Fingerprint authentication can be hacked.

But what everybody is not considering is:

1\. You _have_ to have a Bloomberg keyboard to work in finance. It's not even a question. It's a COGS for anybody who wants to work in finance or trading.

2\. Bloomberg chat is Facebook messenger for finance people.

3\. If your trading desk is bringing in $10M in profits/year, four Bloomberg terminals are a rounding error.

People who berate Bloomberg and it's tech need to have more empathy and ask why things are the way they are.

<comment><USER3> Bloomberg software is certainly important because of the large ecosystem they created over the years. The keyboard and hardware around is not so. It's just Bloomberg way to advertise themselves using physical presence in every trading desk. It is a disrespect to customers, because if I had to pay I would require that a proper keyboard and hardware be used.

By the way, I have used Bloomberg terminals before with a traditional keyboard, and know that there is nothing special in that keyboard that cannot be done by similar hardware.

<comment><USER4> They made one thing annoying: without a bloomberg keyboard you have to bring your B-Unit in front of your screen for 2fa instead of plugging it in the keyboard. Except for that, I fully agree with you. I find the bloomberg keyboard to be very heavy and frustrating to use. I returned it when it was delivered to my desk.

<comment><USER5> Isn't there a standalone USB version of the B-Unit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've often found it very peculiar that while many industries have specialized input hardware, it is still the norm for developers to type awkward key combinations* for common programming symbols such as (,),{,},[,],=,<,> etc. which are be used in mass quantities all day, every day.

I understand how we got where we are, but it's nevertheless surprising that something like a modernized space-cadet keyboard isn't standard for developers. Or at least a programmable keyboard with a thumb-activated modifier key plus a home row key for the most commonly used symbols.

* SHIFT+<anything other than letters> is awkward if you have to do it enough. Especially laptops, which enjoy deviating from ANSI or ISO layouts. I've also heard it told that some international layouts make "[" and "]" especially unhandy.

<comment><USER7> Take control of your keyboard. At least Windows and Linux let you remap pretty freely. You probably have more than enough keys to do everything you want already, start remapping! A common path in is to remap Caps Lock to do something useful. (I favor Backspace, one of the keys that never shows up on the list of keystrokes if you just analyze text, but YMMV.)

However, it is still the case that even programmers will likely have the symbols off the beaten path a bit. Programmers still do a lot of not- programming, so it's hard for a symbol to displace even unpopular letters from the most convenient spaces. Your local written language will still end up dominating the keyspace.

<comment><USER8> If you are using Windows, how are you rebinding your Caps Lock key? AutoHotKey?

I've made my own keyboard layout using Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator which unfortunately doesn't support rebinding the modifiers.

<comment><USER9> > AutoHotKey?

It sort of works, but you're much better off doing it in the registry: [https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MovingTheCtrlKey#toc18](https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/MovingTheCtrlKey#toc18)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Talk about your SaaS. $24,000 a year for one of these babies. I think it's how he made most of his fortune.

Edit: corrected for year

[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion=1&e...](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20much%20is%20bloomberg%20terminal)

<comment><USER11> Regarding the amount he makes from the terminals and service, I don't doubt that's the major haul of any given year, year after year.

Not coincidentally, that's why I take his pontificating about finance and economics with a grain of salt - he was a tech savvy info delivery man who lucked into trapping people into a dog-shit ugly, expensive, and industry ubiquitous device.

It's along the lines of "I'll view Google as more than just an extremely successful ad agency when they make money on their other projects" which might not seem fair, but cuts through a lot of the enigma-like perspectives regarding tech firms.

<comment><USER5> I don't agree with a lot of his political views but I'll trust him on the finance and economics front over a majority of politicians given that he worked for Salomon Brothers and arguably was an extremely well-accomplished mayor. Bloomberg is arguably a technology company delivering a product for the finance sector but he absolutely had the prerequisite domain knowledge to launch the company and propel it into what it is today.

<comment><USER11> Oh I agree regarding the business savvy and intelligence to put out a successful product and maintain a market share. The guy did an absolutely fabulous job of it, and I'm not sure it could be replicated.

Although, having worked in municipal finance on the Street for a couple years (somewhat back office, somewhat deal support) I can honestly say that a lot of the systems and information in certain sectors is pretty dated. As in, not very good by modern standards. The MSRB is trying with EMMA - but because there's no fiscal / competitive reward like in Bloomberg's info providing case, rather it's for regulatory and market stability - but a lot of stuff was still pretty old school.

I've designed an "Information as a Service" program targeting some of the most lucrative sectors in public finance (construction, transportation, education, etc) but still haven't mastered the design / handshakes with needed sources (ex. Thompson Reuters) to really call it ready to debut. Another issue is finding the right price point - Bloomberg's got a racket going, I'd just want to hit a good spot where most businesses could afford access, or put it at a value premium where having the information before others (arranged/conditioned by the system) would be worth larger expense. Eh, good times!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Oh puhleeze.

I have been a subscriber to the Bloomberg terminal for a full 17 years, the keyboard has been changed literally 4 times in that period, and I have yet to see one that is not a _regression_ from the one that went before. Today you get a plasticky, flexy, Asia-made, chicklets device with capacitor touches whereas the original was a monstrous, metallic, mechanical beast, IBM-style. It would have made the massdrop community swoon, with its retro vibe and indestructible build.

For the past 10 years I have not used a bb keyboard. They provide a separate finger sensor if desired (as they should - it costs 1800 dollars a month for subscription), and you can always use your b-unit.

The bloomberg keyboard is a dinosaur that dates back from the UI of Bloomberg's 1980s ethos -> the mainframe. It even has the command line in the top of the screen, old System/360 style. The colour coded keys are almost an embarrassment, reflecting the embarrassingly bad UI. Bloomberg is 10 000 different pieces of functionality of which the average user uses 1%. It's a catastrophically badly done taxonomy of (what is, underlying, awesome) functionality. That's why they have so many Bloomberg "reps" who come over constantly to show you new stuff. These poor guys are compensating for the fact that all the good stuff is extremely difficult to find.

Thanks Bloomberg for the new 80 dollar toy. That'll be about 5% of my monthly subscription price then. Doesn't hide the fact that your entire UI is prehistoric.

<comment><USER13> The original was nice, but this one is definitely a big step up from the one that came before, which (while still heavy and monstrous) was one of the worst keyboards I've ever used, with complete lack of feedback. This one is actually quite decent, better than most desktop keyboards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Bloomberg terminals are super powerful and basically the defacto standard for traders. There is a great tutorial video on YouTube[1] that shows how to use the terminal and its functions. It is a really interesting watch.

[1] [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8HiHZcgEE](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8HiHZcgEE)

</comment><comment><USER15> This keyboard has been out for ages, unless I am missing something here?

On a side note, hated my B-unit, always took 5+ lengthy swipes to register.

<comment><USER16> > This keyboard has been out for ages, unless I am missing something here?

Not everyone works in finance and/or is familiar with Bloomberg terminals (like me). I think this is pretty interesting since Bloomberg, unlike most application developers, has taken their UX to the point where they're building application-specific hardware (though I understand a lot of that is basically legacy inertia).

Also, programmers seem to be far more interested in keyboards as a subject that most people.

I also thought the B-unit is interesting, it's different than any other authentication device I've used.

[http://www.bbhub.io/professional/sites/4/2015/03/b-unit_3_us...](http://www.bbhub.io/professional/sites/4/2015/03/b-unit_3_user_guide.pdf)

<comment><USER17> "Also, programmers seem to be far more interested in keyboards as a subject that most people."

They worry about keyboards because it's one of the professions where RSI is common.

[http://www.looknohands.me](http://www.looknohands.me)

[http://markmcb.com/2014/10/13/severe-hand-rsi-pain-and- recov...](http://markmcb.com/2014/10/13/severe-hand-rsi-pain-and-recovery/)

[http://web.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi- bin/wrist.php](http://web.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi-bin/wrist.php) \- Stanford professor and creator of TCL

Here are plenty of other stories: [https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes](https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes)

<comment><USER16> Oh, I'm not criticizing that interest. It has a legitimate and practical basis given the amount of time programmers spend using keyboards and how integral they are to the performance of their job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It may get a lot of negative comments but I think it's interesting something like this still exists, a custom piece of terminal hardware, that hasn't just been eaten by some iPad app or web app.

<comment><USER19> IMHO the reason it hasn't been turned into an app is to justify its price. Psychologically, people will pay more for hardware than software even if it does the exact same thing.

<comment><USER20> It has been turned into an app, they don't even sell terminals anymore. The keyboard, monitor, and biometric unit are just accessories that you plug into your existing computer, which aren't even necessary to use the software. This makes the shittyness of the keyboard even worse IMO, because they are trying to push these expensive, unnecessary things as a superior experience to the keyboard you already own. It's blatant marketing bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is it new? It just looks the same to the ones we have been using in our College for the last four years or so.

<comment><USER22> The video was posted over two years ago: [https://vimeo.com/90701077](https://vimeo.com/90701077)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if the biometric fingerprint thingy can be defeated with a gummy bear.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/16/gummi_bears_defeat_f...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/16/gummi_bears_defeat_fingerprint_sensors/)

[http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities-and- threats/apple...](http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities-and- threats/apple-iphone-5s-fooled-by-fake-finger/d/d-id/1111637)?

</comment><comment><USER24> These keyboards are so unpleasant. At one point I wished I could get keycaps printed for a different keyboard, but now it doesn't matter as I've memorized the keys anyway.

</comment><comment><USER25> These keyboards are ergonomically awful: an undifferentiated mass of completely flat buttons, with crappy keyswitches. Makes them slow and error prone. You can tell no one involved in the design process spent any time thinking about human hand anatomy. On the upside, production costs should be pretty cheap.

People making devices for "professionals" should take inspiration from keyboards produced in the 1970s–80s, which are generally much nicer than anything on the market today.

In the same general market, WEY makes much nicer keyboards than Bloomberg, e.g. [http://www.weytec.com/en/products/wey- keyboards/mk06-keyboar...](http://www.weytec.com/en/products/wey- keyboards/mk06-keyboard/highlights/)

<comment><USER26> > keyboards produced in the 1970s–80s, which are generally much nicer than > anything on the market today.

If you haven't picked up on it there has been a resurgence in engineering/design around mechanical keyboards. From switch design to keycaps and board layouts.

* Boards like the KBC Pok3r, the Happy Hacking Keyboard Professional2 are readily available on Amazon. And novel designs like the Ergodox or The White Fox are available through group buys on massdrop or desk authority.

* Keycaps of many makes and profiles are being designed from a couple companies, designed by enthusiasts for group buys and made Signature Plastics and Tai-Hao.

* Mechanical Switches are being made by the Cherry which has been around forever, as well as new entrants Gateron and Kailh

Check out r/MechanicalKeyboards there is a lot of interesting stuff going on.

<comment><USER25> Yes, I have been an active member of geekhack and deskthority for a few years and have way more ebay keyboard purchases than I need cluttering up my closet, have tried pretty much every ergonomic keyboard ever mass produced, have designed keycap legends for Massdrop and proofed various Signature Plastics designs, have prototyped a couple dozen novel ergonomic keyboards, am friends with the keyboard.io and input.club people, suggested some ideas to Matias about their ErgoPro before it shipped, etc.

The point remains though, the keyswitches and keycaps common in the 1970s are much nicer than Cherry MX or its clones, or anything easily available today. All the currently available keycap profiles are noticeably worse than e.g. the profile IBM used on Selectric typewriters or beam spring keyboards in the 1970s.

As far as keycaps are concerned, you might enjoy these little props I made last year: [http://i.imgur.com/kFxqOm8.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/kFxqOm8.jpg) [http://i.imgur.com/M3tQybL.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/M3tQybL.jpg)

My own preferred fix to the Ergodox concept is something along the lines of [http://i.imgur.com/puH1Ge4.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/puH1Ge4.jpg) (ignore the legends; my keymap is unrelated)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I used a bloomberg terminal at work. Yes it is a bit annoying if you dont use it everyday, but it is really nice when you get used to it. It has nice chicklets which have more action than a mac one.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have been thinking about getting a filco mech keyboard to replace the bloomberg keyboard at work - and I would just need to make custom keycaps with the yellow keywords printed on the f keys, but i'm just wondering what do i do with the row above the f keys- menu, news, message, and the fractional shortcuts - those seem quite important to me too.

oh yes and the fingerprint reader too that i forgot. what a pain.

</comment><comment><USER29> On a related note does anyone have recommendations for free/open CLI tools or APIs for accessing public financial data? Ideally also executing trades.

And no, I don't think I could build my own little hedge fund, or beat the market, but it would be interesting to know what one could build on top of if one wanted to try that. Or build custom info dashboards.

</comment><comment><USER30> Just looking at that page gave me an irresistible flashback to the legendary Elan Enterprise home computer:

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/24/elan_flan_enterprise...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/24/elan_flan_enterprise_micro_is_30_years_old/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Why not a OLED or similar keyboard that displays the special keys? They are after a small space on the desk being able to remap the keys would be a huge bonus. Back in 2013 people demoed these, I would think that now they would be something that would fit in Bloombergs price range

</comment><comment><USER5> Really hoping my older white one doesn't break. Love how loud the keys are.

<comment><USER32> The white ones feel indestructible. The newer black ones just seem flimsy to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> While the keyboard seems like you bog standard one except for an extra row above the function keys, i find the terminals themselves interesting.

This in that the UI reminds me of one of the tile based ones found on *nix.

</comment><comment><USER34> > To authenticate your access to the Bloomberg Professional service, your > finger image is scanned and associated with your account.

Does that mean that anyone with a picture of my finger can access my account?

</comment><comment><USER35> Strange title, this looks like the current keyboard I use. On a side note, the new keyboard is much lighter and feels cheaper than the older ones, which used to be made of heavier duty metal.

</comment><comment><USER36> One-key functions is nice but there is more to be done:

1) Voice controls, e.g. Amazon Echo

2) Pluggable custom key extension sideboard decoupled for the main keyboard so that extension board can be easily customized.

<comment><USER37> You don't want to be speaking orders or audibly asking questions about securities in many, if not most, situations

<comment><USER36> I think entering orders manually is a use case that is getting obsolete very quickly. There are plenty of use caes outside of trading. How about calling a chart for a ticker, e.g. Equity AAPL GO

</comment></comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant The sheer quality of the marketing video is eerie. It elicited a mix of fascination and disgust I don't get to experience often.

</comment><comment><USER38> They need to upgrade terminal itself, not the keyboard. Anyone who works at BB will tell you how outdated their stack is

</comment><comment><USER39> Not mentioned here are the built-in speakers. Exclusive to Bloomberg, those, as they have a patent on it.

</comment><comment><USER40> "hardware is more expensive to produce than software"

This was posted as a joke here, right? People here actually know tech (and therefore don't believe stuff like the quote) and many people may never have heard of a brand for Wallstreet guys (so no impact from the "big" name, at least from all people I showed this to and laughed about it together).

</comment><comment><USER41> I was really hoping for built-in hand sanitizer. Maybe next time.

</comment><comment><USER42> Modern keyboard with 100-years old keys alignment. WOW.</comment>


Man sued by Best Buy for using Geek Squad name - <AUTHOR> http://www.startribune.com/business/235677751.html

<comment><USER2> Isn't Geek Squad being phased out anyways? I thought I remembered hearing that the program wasn't making any money...Maybe this lawsuit is Best Buy's last attempt to make some money off their failed project ;)</comment>


Will Spotify Ruin Podcasting? - <AUTHOR> https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/will-spotify-ruin-podcasting <comment><USER2> Article is definitely worth a read.

> From 2014 to 2020, Spotify bought 15 companies, companies that build > everything from data analytics to music and audio production tools to audio > ad tools to licensing platforms, and podcasting networks.

> Spotify is directly mimicking Google and Facebook, and attempting to roll up > power over digital audio markets the way Google and Facebook did over the > internet. It has already done so in music.

As it exists today, the podcasting ecosystem is a very open system, with publicly accessible feeds and the ability to use any app/player.

I'm very afraid that if Spotify keeps this up, it's going to lead to a very fragmented system similar to the film/TV streaming industry (Netflix, Prime, Apple TV, et al.) which would require you to install proprietary apps and pay for multiple subscriptions to listen to stuff. Likely several different apps for different shows and companies.

Unfortunately, it appears that Spotify is motivated by increased profits and getting a market monopoly to completely destroy the open system that we have today, which will also make it undoubtedly harder for newcomers to enter the industry.

Right now Spotify complains about how Apple apps have an unfair advantage on Apple's platform, but they're doing the same thing. Spotify podcasts have an unfair advantage on Spotify's platform. I don't believe the platform should also be a content creator. This is really shitty of Spotify to do.

<comment><USER3> Spotify isn't doing anything to podcasts. An audio program that doesn't publish an RSS feed that I can subscribe to in my podcast player of choice isn't a podcast. It's also not something I'm going to waste my time listening to.

As far as Apple, Apple's podcast directory and app are the very definition of "open". Apple just indexes publicly available submitted RSS feeds. When you subscribe from Apple's podcast app, the app itself polls the publishers RSS feed and plays directly from the publisher's servers.

You can also subscribe to a podcast directly from the app using the url to the podcast - it doesn't have to be in Apple's directory.

Apple even offers a public API of the podcast directory that can be used by anyone on any platform.

<comment><USER4> As much as I want that to be the case, "A television broadcast that doesn't come in free over the airwaves isn't a broadcast show" type sentiments didn't stop cable, and while cable started with a nicer, often ad-free offering, the advantages faded as it grew, balkanization of channel offerings eventually came, etc. Operating a local television station in the US today now requires collaboration with these companies, and they have little incentive to work effectively with smaller local players. They can get nationally syndicated shows through their originating networks, and only really need to bow to local interests at all for highly localized things like news (and even that's dying rapidly).

These open spaces and preferred arrangements have to be defended or they will die.

<comment><USER3> Cable was never an ad free alternative. That's a popular meme.

<comment><USER4> A large number of premium, cable-exclusive channels were at one point. Broadcast channels weren't, but that wasn't a disadvantage, and those premium channels brought a lot to the table.

[https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be- inv...](https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by- commercials.html)

<comment><USER3> Those few premium channels that you paid extra for on top of your regular cable build were ad free and still are.

<comment><USER4> Some of them are, especially movie-related ones, but special interest and news channels generally run ads now. This also isn't really relevant to my point and I never said that cable used to be ad-free, but rather that there used to be a more prominent attraction to it due to some ad-free content offerings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If Spotify can figure out how to make podcasters real money and save them from begging for donos/Patreon/subs on every episode, it's going to make big waves in the space.

Spotify annoys us, being used to free and open things on the hobbyist's dime, but as we smugly advise on HN when it's convenient for us: sometimes you need to shake up the business model. That's what Spotify might be able to pull off for podcasters.

Not sure it will ruin anything, though. The people who prefer to beg for donations in their podcast episodes are always free to do it. Our unwillingness to support content creators is what ruins things and puts everything behind an explicit paywall.

<comment><USER6> Spotify managed to make musicians abismimal returns, why would it work any differently for podcasts?

<comment><USER7> Spotify pays more per listen than radio or YouTube.

<comment><USER8> That still sounds like a bad model for paying artists. If I sign up for Spotify and only listen to a few artists I'm fond of, those artists get next to nothing of my subscription fees. Instead I'm subsidizing the payouts to artists like Drake. Who I have nothing against, I'm just not listening to his work.

<comment><USER6> That's the problem. The subscription fees should go towards what one listens not average over all artists or some other kind of formula spotify came up with. This could be like micropayemnts and i think would change the dynamics quite a bit

<comment><USER9> I've always wondered why it isn't done like this. It doesn't seem like it would make a difference to Spotify. Is it the record label forcing the current model?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of my favourite podcasts is moving to become _spotify exclusive_. It is hard to put the betrayal I felt into words, when they first announced it.

I know it is a little silly and they probably do what is (in the short term) the best financial decision for them, but I already accepted that this is it and I won't listen to them anymore.

If you go _exclusive_ to any plattform you never do it _for_ your fans, but essentially _against_ them. They might have a podcatcher they listen to you on they used for years, which they now should change because you want to limit the plattforms you are on.

The german podcast scene gladly seems to be quite resistant against these kind of things and they say they earn more through direct donations than spotify and/or audible is able to give them anyways.

Why would you voluntarily give up that freedom? And why is it so often US podcasters who do it first (they are also much more plastered with ads)?

<comment><USER11> My experience exactly with Last Podcast on the Left, which is just now going Spotify exclusive. The frustrating part is how many fans defend such an anti- listener action.

<comment><USER12> It's a risk they'll take. Look at what happened to ninja and shroud when they switched to mixer from twitch. They are probably down 70%+ on their viewers (based on me checking in infrequently) and mixer isn't even walled off. It is incredibly hard to wall off something in this age of plentiful entertainment and maintain the viewers you once had.

<comment><USER13> Twitch really could use some competition, but I thought their self-promotion was a bit dishonest. They tried to portrait themselves as the underdog. True, compared to twitch perhaps, but they are still owned by Microsoft. And on the topic on content discrimination you probably wouldn't want that as a viewr.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a difficult time believing that, of all things, Podcasting is the thing Spotify will/has ruined.

The Podcast ecosystem is very open, but the only monetization vehicle I know of that has made a meaningful impact in the history of Podcasts is Midroll (Which now looking up seems to be owned by Stitcher).

I know from listening to the Giant Bomb podcast for a decade that they had a hard time justifying the podcast to the business-side of their operation for years because it doesn't work in to a balance sheet.

Presumably that is less of an issue now and I hear Midroll-based ads on literally every podcast I listen to.

I'd be much more worried about that than Spotify as far as monopoloization goes.

This article leaves them out entirely, and it feels like it's almost done with purpose to make the point they want.

<comment><USER15> I don't know what "MidRoll" is but my podcasting software (and I'm assuming all others) has +30sec -15sec buttons. I use them top skip every ad. Maybe I'm an exception and most people listen to ads but I find it's trivial to skip them so I do.

<comment><USER16> I'll skip, unless I'm driving and can't touch my phone to do so.

<comment><USER17> Not sure if this helps you, but I recently discovered that Android Auto accepts voice controls for fast forward and rewind, despite not having UI controls for the same. "fast forward 30 seconds" does what you expect it to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Marco, the creator of Overcast debates this situation from time to time on Accidental Tech Podcast.

He recently said that Spotify doesn't seem to be as big an issue as they first expected it to be. It turns out, that most users who listen to podcasts on Spotify didn't listen to podcasts before.

So although Spotify has a sizeable chunk of the market, it didn't hurt the other players much.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, except Spotify exclusives. They're forcing us to use a proprietary platform that's not accessible on all devices and operating systems (music players, non-smart phones, etc). That goes against the very open spirit of podcasting technology.

<comment><USER18> Yep, Stitcher.com does the same. It's a shame, I hope they won't suck too many great podcasts up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Spotify isn't a podcasting platform. It's a proprietary audio platform that uses podcast feeds as input.

The Spotify app isn't a podcast app — you can't play podcasts with it. You can only play shows which have been imported via podcast feeds into their proprietary platform.

If Spotify can continue to get folks talking about Spotify as a "podcasting" platform, listening to "podcasts" on Spotify, etc. (and they've been very successful in doing that judging from the posts in this thread), the world will begin to forget that "podcasting" ever meant "open medium".

<comment><USER20> That's just being pedantic. I installed Spotify only for podcasts. It's also the only app that seems to work with weak networks. Rest are terrible.

<comment><USER21> It's not pedantic though. Lets say you were a fan of Hello Internet (not affiliated, I just subscribe to their private feed)

Run me through how you'd listen to their paid podcast "Goodbye Internet"[0] in Spotify and I'll concede that Spotify is a podcast client.

[0] [https://www.patreon.com/hellointernet](https://www.patreon.com/hellointernet)

and then it's also not a podcast provider. Run me through how I'd listen to Gimlet's Academy[1] audio series in Overcast, and I'll concede that point too

[1] [https://open.spotify.com/show/7hhEbl4DOMheWRunCUAla6?si=WFxE...](https://open.spotify.com/show/7hhEbl4DOMheWRunCUAla6?si=WFxEsdUZTrehOt3qg2OIWQ)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > Recently, Spotify announced a new advertising service, Spotify Podcast Ads > with what's called 'streaming ad insertion.'

Oh good, the Adsense-ification of podcast ads is now upon us. Why bother having the talent read out the ads and maybe inject some improvisation and humour into it, when we can just have the real-time-bidding system decide what commercial you should see, based on whatever Spotify has stitched together using all its data points.

<comment><USER23> On the other hand, the potential value to the Podcast is a better long term revenue stream from old content.

Most likely a worse experience as listener though. And you could make the argument it's worse for the ecosystem/community/relationship between Podcast and listener as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> From a personal point-of-view I am more into the not so professional podcasts and as soon as a popular podcast starts getting too serious and starts sounding like any radio show out there, I lose interest. The same with Youtube, I like the creativity and drive of people when they start a channel or podcast about some subject they really enjoy. I think a lot of podcasts dies for me when I notice that they are more focused on getting a bigger audience and cater for more than what they did in the first place. I realize why, it is about having the money to be able to do it for a living, but from a personal point-of-view, I totally lose interest when stuff gets too professional. So, in my mind, Spotify wont kill podcasting, they will help some podcasters to gain a living from it and maybe become mainstream, but there will always be room for an open podcast community when new podcasts start from a desire and interest in a specific area of interest and not from what a mega-company think will gain a lot of listeners.

</comment><comment><USER25> I was always somewhat confused about why Spotify got into the podcast space, until I tried Spotify's ad platform: unless you're advertising music or specific types of consumer goods, targeting based on podcast category is an order of magnitude more powerful than just artist/genre.

<comment><USER26> The other piece is that the negotiating supply of podcasts is less concentrated than that of music. With music, if you want to reduce licensing fees, you have to negotiate with a label, who could meaningfully undermine your product by pulling all their artists.

Podcasts are closer to YouTube... few podcasters have have scale to demand terms, having one walk away over terms is less of a problem because you don't playlist podcasts in the way you do music, lots of podcasters in it for love of the game or starting out hoping to hit it big (and willing to forgo ad revenue for audience).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think it could possibly ruin the 'big budget', glossy podcasts in the mould of Serial as they take more money to produce and I'd imagine they are more reliant on ad income.

It may also be more accurate to suggest that Spotify will ruin American podcasting - I can't see UK podcasts (particularly those that are BBC-funded) going spotify only, and iPhones (and probably by extension the podcasts app) are only a huge market share in the US.

Here's hoping that the independently funded and smaller podcasts will continue to exist outisde of Spotify.

<comment><USER28> Yeah the BBC podcasts aren't going to go exclusive, but instead they've launched their own podcast app and piss everyone off by going on about it constantly.

<comment><USER29> They might go exclusive to BBC Sounds. The BBC has already started pulling its services from those they perceive to be competitors, like TuneIn[1] and Google Podcast[2].

[1] [https://radiotoday.co.uk/2019/08/bbc-to-pull-all-radio- servi...](https://radiotoday.co.uk/2019/08/bbc-to-pull-all-radio-services- from-tunein-uk-platform/)

[2] [https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/03/27/bbc-removes- podcasts...](https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/03/27/bbc-removes-podcasts- google-podcasts-and-assistant)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Overcast is so much better than Spotify for podcasts. I still use Spotify for all my music but gave up listening podcasts; it's not just intuitive as overcast.

</comment><comment><USER31> This might be a noob question, but what is the right way to listen to podcasts on Spotify? They recently bought the company that produces half of the podcasts I listen to, Gimlet, so I wanted to see if it was a better experience using them. I devoted 5 minutes to it, but so far I wasn't able to figure out the basics, like subscribing to podcasts and seeing what's in the queue to listen to.

</comment><comment><USER32> Someone should create a service that generates RSS streams of Spotify exclusive podcasts.

It would definitively be illegal, but that could be solved with proper opsec. It would definitively not be immoral.

<comment><USER33> > It would definitively be illegal

Would it? Just a list of links to episodes in machine readable form? I can't see what issues it raise, unless it ignores a NOROBOTS

<comment><USER34> The RSS feed would need links to the audio files - I suspect that Spotify only allows access to those through its app much as YouTube does through its app/website (this is what stops YouTube video podcast feeds from becoming a thing)

<comment><USER35> [https://youtube-dl.org/](https://youtube-dl.org/)

Always a workaround.

<comment><USER34> Well my assumption was how it could be achieved without violating Terms of Service

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'll be the first to admit that I moved from Pocket Casts to Spotify at the start of the year, when I saw that my Year in Review featured podcasts.

That's all it took, plus the convenience of having one singular app for music + podcasts.

The only two podcasts I can't get on Spotify are Joe Rogan (I listen to like 1 out of every 500 episodes so will just download an MP3 or whatever) and a private RSS feed for Popular Front which I back on Patreon.

It gives me the shits though that the Podcast section feels like an MVP still. There are no public API endpoints (not sure any podcast apps have them publically to be fair) and the desktop experience is subpar at best. Not even sure the play interval syncs up

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to reassess my choice and move back to Pocket Casts. I was one of the original purchasers so I have a free lifetime subscription it seems.

It looks like they have some desktop apps too (UWP + Mac) which seems new

</comment><comment><USER37> As it stands Spotify apps are trash for listening to (or finding) anything other than popular music.

Podcasts, Classical music, or anything that doesn't fit the mould of Artist -> Album -> Track just doesn't fit their domain models.

</comment><comment><USER38> Has anyone seen a way to disable podcasts in Spotify?

<comment><USER39> No. They want people to listen to more podcasts and less music

<comment><USER40> Why is that?

<comment><USER41> You don't have to deal with record labels for one thing.

I had a conversation once with someone who was doing a music startup for a while. He said his startup pivoted to podcasts (specifically for executives/business people) because it was easier to make money.

<comment><USER39> yep. in the time it takes for you to go through 10 songs, where spotify does a mini payout each time listen, you can listen to a podcast, where spotify not only makes $$ through ad placement thanks to anchor, they get the content for free

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> My experience has only been that Spotify is another good place to submit a podcast to. I use a Transistor as my host, and it makes sense to publish everywhere, since once you set it up anyone can listen to you regardless of what their main listening hub is. Different podcasts have different demographics, some of mine have thrived on Spotify, some get almost nothing from it. I don't see them being capable of becoming a monopoly

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm unclear what happens if I listen to podcasts in Spotify as a paying subscriber - am I still tracked?

It troubles me that if a favorite podcast goes "Spotify Exclusive" I may not be able to listen to it without being subjected to invasive targeted behavioral tracking.

I'm not opposed to ads in podcasts (if they're disclosed) but to be tracked etc, especially as a paying customer, really squicks me out.

<comment><USER44> Yes. Spotify will insert targeted ads into your podcast.

<comment><USER43> The insertion isn't my concern, it's that they do tracking to decide what to insert :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think it has to do with the RSS standard. As a podcaster ("Eyes of Reason") I like Spotify because I can see things like the age, gender and location of where my listeners are coming from as well as see things like how long they listened. If we can update the RSS Protocol to have these features then it would prevent this sort of Payola and agglomeration from happening.

<comment><USER33> Maybe regularly ask your listeners to fill in a voluntary survey, if helps support you. I'm sure many would.

FWIW, Spotify _thinks_ it knows my age and gender, but it really doesn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Spotify won't ruin podcasts any more than apple has. Right now if someone only posts a link to apple podcasts and not their rss then it makes it much less likely that I'll check out their show because I use android. The same thing will happen if someone posts a link to spotify. If you make it harder for me to get your product then I'll be less likely to bother.

<comment><USER47> Good luck getting a non-tech person listening to a podcast by supplying them with an RSS link. I don't mean to be snarky, and I hate it from the bottom of my heart, but it's the sad reality. For 99,999% of people, a RSS link is not just making it "harder" to get to the product, it's making it impossible. They won't bother.

<comment><USER46> Good luck getting an android person to listen to you podcast by supplying them with a link to apple.

You don't have to just have one or the other. Have all the links. They are free.

<comment><USER47> Completely agreed, your comment made it sound like you were suggesting _only_ RSS instead of any vendor-specific links to me, but I misunderstood. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I use an RSS based podcast player for my drive to work and back. If a show doesn't have an RSS, I can't listen to it.

I'm not going to jump to someone's website or switch between player apps while I'm driving along the M1. If you want to listen to your show, I'd need to switch player apps entirely and listen to all my shows on that other player.

</comment><comment><USER49> If you don't want this to happen, support small podcast networks (which are essentially unions) like Maximum Fun.

</comment><comment><USER50> Sounds like they purchased Anchor for the ad insertion feature. IMO, as a podcast producer, this is a great thing. That said, Anchor currently lets us publish our podcast almost everywhere we'd like to. I can totally see Anchor being turned into Spotify: the podcast host, then that being done away with. I guess that's when we leave Anchor. I don't know, though. I hate having to run ads and how we never get support, but have reached something like 150 plays a week in a year.

I hate to sound like a jerk, but if people paid producers instead of subscribing to companies, the world may be a better place.

</comment><comment><USER51> The short answer: no.

You will see some content go exclusive, but this is an inevitable feature of content-based markets. It's very difficult to differentiate yourself, and if you don't have your own content the content holders have the leverage to completely own you. It's what happened to Netflix. No one is complaining about them having their own shows.

Spotify might even help. The US podcast market is stunted by the lack of good apps. Maybe with the power and money of a Spotify we can make a podcast app that lets providers make way more money, get way better analytics, and see actual feature-level innovation.

</comment><comment><USER52> For the most part, the podcasts I listen to are independent. I'm not all that concerned about a megacorp coming in and destroying things. If Apple and Google couldn't do it, I think we're okay for a while.

<comment><USER53> > If Apple and Google couldn't do it

Apple sat on a de facto monopoly on the podcast player market for a vey long time and simply left it alone. They absolutely could have ruined it. They just didn't.

I'm not sure about the Android ecosystem (it was pretty much irrelevant for the podcast market until relatively recently anyway), but did Google even try?

<comment><USER54> Google barely even touches podcasts. I'm not sure if there's a "default podcast app" on Android.

<comment><USER55> There is an app called Google Podcasts (com.google.android.apps.podcasts) but I don't think it's an Android default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> > Spotify is directly mimicking Google and Facebook, and attempting to roll up > power over digital audio markets the way Google and Facebook did over the > internet.

There was always something about Spotify that made me very, very nervous. Although I could never put my finger on it, it did mean that I have never felt comfortable enough to use it.

This statement provided me with a moment of realization, though -- _this_ is what made me nervous about Spotify. It's also why I will never begin to use their service -- even if they manage to deprive me of the podcasts that I currently value.

</comment><comment> zsolt-beringer My main concern about publishing monopolies is that they are obsolete in terms of quality control. Censorship has its right to prevent abuse and so on. But I think for well established free thinkers who are far from any extremities (CGP Grey comes to me as a great example) should thrive towards federated networks. But I understand that advertising and mass media is getting more and more complicated. #ChomskyWasRight ;)

</comment><comment><USER57> There's no right answer here. Platforms (aka utilities in the real world) are wonderful sources of economic value but they are also natural monopolies. It appears that the promised land of monopoly profits are what drives capital to invest in building and improving platforms in the first place, so at what point do you impose the heavy hand of regulation to avoid abuse of monopoly power?

</comment><comment><USER58> The author states:

>"With most users going through either Google properties or Facebook properties, these corporations could then de-commodify the ad value of a publisher ad slot."

Could someone say what is meant by "de-commodify the ad value of a publisher ad slot." and how it is "decomodified"?

</comment><comment><USER59> Welcome to clickbait headlines world: where telling truth is a revolutionary act that might get you killed (in the most extreme cases that embarrass the warmongers).

Anyhow, take two of the podcasters I happen to listen to:

\- Michael Moore's _Rumble_ \- MM's complete focus until things get better

\- Steve Lehto's _Lehto 's Law_ \- Lemon law, legal and other stories

both stream to Youtube also, which are subject to two or more completely different corporate masters. It seems like a silly suggestion if there's no technical, legal or economic barriers to publishing to N platforms to suggest podcasters are locked-in. If someone were deplatformed from YT and Spotify, there's Twitch, Floatplane and Vimeo and hundreds of others. A sensible creator should have a website at a minimum to sell merch and link to social media, and have backup content sites and backup means of monetization (in- content, sponsored, and/or patreon/paypal direct). I think the big platforms are making it more and more difficult for small creators to make money, but I also think creators, large and small, need to diversify and protect themselves from being dependent on or being locked-into exclusive deals with any one corporate platform.

OTOH, paraphrasing Chris Hedges, public commons and public discourse have been replaced with corporate platforms, public-private "partnerships" and mixed-use shopping areas. Slowly-but-surely, a number of corporations are gobbling us up and making us subject to their arbitrary whims (Youtube's opaque processes to handle copyright and fair-use). He refers to it by the name "inverted totalitarianism".. corporations subvert democracy with unlimited "speech" PAC money, manufacture consent through PR messaging, Cambridge Analytica's and troll factories to shift sentiment in desired ways, and possess immense control over individuals to express themselves and make a living that's not obvious until it's used, the effects of which are rarely obvious to other people.

<comment><USER60> Calling a well-researched and crafted, long thoughtpiece clickbait rattles my nettles.

I feel a lot of people mentioning individual podcasts in this thread is missing the point -- if the masses see Spotify as the place to find podcasts in, that's where they'll find podcasts in. If ad money moves there, content creators will move there, and draw a lot of people with them.

Of course podcasters aren't going to be locked-in, neither will advertisers or listeners, but there will be a significant lure to just going on Spotify.

What's your first reaction when you want to find a video? You go on YouTube. What's your first reaction when you want to find a solution to a silly problem you're sure a solution exists? You go to Google. What's your first reaction when you want to watch someone stream a computer game? You go to Twitch.

THAT is what Spotify wants here. They want to be the first or at least be in contention to being the first whenever anyone wants to find something audio- related. Music, new albums, and apparently now podcasts. They're already a household name so when a normal person hears that there are good podcasts on Spotify they'll just go "oh huh, that makes sense" and if they get interested they might check one out.

I'd like to say I'll keep an eye out for this but honestly who has the energy? A year from now someone will make a nice graphic showing how many podcasters have transitioned to Spotify and how it's affected the field. I find the clarion call to lawmakers both optimistic and naïve, blocking a merger because Spotify MIGHT cause platform stagnation in 15 years is just never going to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Podcasting is perfect for big companies to wall off into their content gardens.

AmaCasts

YouGooCasts

SpotCasts

DisneyCasts

AppleCasts

Etc etc

All it will take is a tiny tiny tiny bit of money by the standards of these companies to buy anything with an audience.

Exactly the same at TV, you'll need to find your podcast of choice on the channel that owns it.

</comment><comment><USER62> I've been paying for Spotify for 5 years, but I now only use it strictly for music. I find their UI for podcasts to be unintuitive and confusing, hoping they can update it soon.

</comment><comment><USER63> Spotify has plenty of healthy competition. Audible also tries. Both players are poorly optimized for podcast consumption. They could learn lots from overcast...

</comment><comment><USER64> This seems like a parallel to blogs and rss feeds.

</comment><comment><USER65> I suppose it would be illegal to offer an RSS feed of podcasts recorded off of Spotify?

</comment><comment><USER66> Short answer: yes.

But then again, a podcast needs a RSS feed. Not worth calling it a podcast otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER67> Patreon already has an rss reader in its app doesn't it? Why bother with Spotify.

</comment><comment><USER68> They are certainly trying to pivot.

</comment><comment><USER69> No RSS, not a podcast, so no...

They might make it so that some podcasts some people like shut down and move to Spotify...

<comment><USER70> RSS is the podcasting platform. Also You cant monetize the network. It was tried before and it had not worked out. Key is value for value. And with the ad scheme and analytics I bet the value for the listener goes down as they become the product

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> tl;dr Only if they gain a monopoly. Either way, I'll be looking for free solutions. The main reason I don't use Spotify, and why Spotify can never reach me, is Bandcamp and the fact that I really like my RSS feed.

</comment><comment><USER72> It's hard to see how this might happen without also rolling up Patreon.

</comment><comment><USER73> I listen to No Agenda! they won't be going to Spotify!

</comment><comment><USER74> What will ruin podcasting is when 4 or 5 conglomerates own nearly all podcasts.

<comment><USER75> How can a few companies own something that can be produced at near zero cost and distributed at low cost as well?

<comment><USER74> Because at some point independents won't be able to compete for ad dollars, etc. and will sign up with one of the few companies.

<comment><USER76> I was around for the birth of the internet. There was a time when motivated people produced things they were passionate about, and put them on the internet without ANY consideration of "monetization," and it was glorious. Now that everything gets gobbled up by FAANG, it's much more difficult to find people who are still doing awesome things outside of those walled gardens. And, given that hosting is SO commoditized, cheap, and easy these days, it's doubly disappointing. I've never gotten into podcasts, but I REALLY hope this attempt by Spotify to wall-up the art fails miserably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I don't mind this. As a consumer, I really love having podcasts available on spotify. I hated using another app, and its nice to be able to queue music/podcast/music for some variety in the gym.

I was never a big podcast user beforehand, but I listen to a lot now. The main reason I didn't listen to any beforehand was the friction in needing to download another app (Which one!? There's so many!) and swap between it. It was very difficult to build a habit when I could just listen to music.

</comment><comment><USER78> I think Spodify's entrance into the podcasting market is a good thing. Good podcasts stay, bad ones don't. Spotify could bring longevity to great podcasts, help grow small ones, but anyone else can start a podcast and run with it if they'd prefer. It's like asking: Did cable ruin television? No, it made it more diverse and expansive.

<comment><USER79> I don't follow the analogy to cable. It seems that podcasting is already diverse. Why will consolidation under Spotify increase diversity?</comment></comment>