Storenvy Goes From Getting Kicked Out Of YC To Raising A $5M Round - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/12/storenvy-goes-from-getting-kicked-out-of-yc-to-raising-a-5m-round/ <comment><USER2> Storenvy has an interesting model, but I'm a bit skeptical about their scalability. I started a fashion brand in HS (backpacks, apparel) and we launched a Storenvy store pretty much off the bat since there was no cost. The issue is that they don't seem to have accountability for their customers. They didn't run any checks to make sure my business is legitimate (obviously it is), that we actually sold product before, that we even had a website. This is polar opposite to Amazon, which runs several screens to make sure sellers are legitimate (getting our products on Amazon took nearly two months).

Perhaps even more importantly, the marketplace model for e-commerce does not align with individual sellers. Marketplaces are focused on expanding, adding more sellers, and expanding product portfolios. Sellers, meanwhile, prefer to be one of few on marketplaces so that they have greater visibility. With Storenvy's model (basically no barriers), I don't see much value being provided to sellers. Even if there is 0 cost to the seller, there is little incentive for them to invest time into building out a profile and attracting customers on the platform.

<comment><USER3> Hey Hacker News!

Thanks for the thoughts. Actually, here's how we're thinking about it:

Storenvy is a custom store platform first and a marketplace second. Every merchant gets her own fully customizable storefront. We make it easier than anyone else by getting up and running with your own store in minutes.

But after you get online, you immediately have the problem of figuring out how to drive customers to your store. The next generation of merchants relies solely on social media for this. Buying advertising typically isn't even considered. So we created the first online store platform with a social network built on top. When you create your store, you're immediately connected with the rapidly-growing Storenvy marketplace where people are discovering and buying your awesome stuff.

In short, we are the only online store platform that actually makes you more sales. And "more sales" is the killer feature of a store platform.

Soon we'll start charging a commission on sales _that happen in the marketplace_. You still keep all of the sales through your storefront.

We'll get better at things like seller ratings and reviews as we grow. That's why we're hiring so many engineers. <http://www.storenvy.com/jobs>

<comment><USER4> >In short, we are the only online store platform that actually makes you more sales.

Do Amazon and Etsy not also do this? By just searching for say 'cufflinks' on Etsy I'm searching all of Etsy's "stores", and the same with Amazon. Although granted, neither put an emphasis on a storefront for each individual seller.

<comment><USER3> Neither gives you a store. Every band, designer, boutique I've ever talked to wants their own store at their own URL that looks like their own brand. Storenvy let's you edit all the HTML and CSS to make your store look however you want. Example: <http://cherrysauceclothing.com>

The other ones you mention _just_ gives you a marketplace where you're essentially a classified ad without your own brand experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Curious -- I see a lot of baked goods for sale that look prepared from a home kitchen. Is this legal? That's assuming many of these for-sale foods are not FDA inspected. I'm not sure I would buy any baked goods from personal storefronts if it was sold out of state.

<comment><USER6> It goes by the local government where the kitchen is. Here in Connecticut the home kitchen needs to be inspected/licensed/approved just like any other commercial kitchen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, were they rejected or "kicked out", i.e. accepted only to get thrown out?

<comment><USER8> I just read his 'infamous' post. He explains that he got accepted, then found out he would have to change his cofounders for personal reasons. This concerned ycombinator, which changed its mind and decided not to fund him because of all the sudden changes and the fact that it was affectively a single-founder company.

[http://joncrawford.com/post/20378314843/how-i-got-kicked- out...](http://joncrawford.com/post/20378314843/how-i-got-kicked-out-of-y- combinator-and-then-raised)

<comment><USER9> Not sure why it was called 'infamous'. Was inspiring, if anything. Good for him and his wife for doing what needed to be done.

<comment><USER10> Alexia called it 'infamous' in the TC post, I think rm999 is referring to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just launched a custom store front for Storenvy that I built on Foundation 3.

<http://malibusown.com/>

It was more difficult than I had hoped to develop for. One of the biggest issues in my opinion right now is the lack of proper mobile support. The stores need to be responsive. With that said, I was able to have a discussion with their community manager and it sounds like they are working to make things better, no doubt this round will help greatly!

<comment><USER12> Random tip, try to run any PNG you have through a compressor like <http://tinypng.org/>. For example by compressing your main logo, tinypng saved you 68% of the original size.

<comment><USER11> Ah, indeed! Thanks for the heads up!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> <http://shoply.com> offers the same aggregated marketplace for small brands and local businesses.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm wondering if YC tracks false negatives to tune their filters on the application process?</comment>


The Navy Needs a Wider Look at Wargaming - <AUTHOR> http://news.usni.org/2015/03/18/opinion-the-navy-needs-a-wider-look-at-wargaming <comment><USER2> In addition to the compelling arguments made here, I would argue wargaming should also be introduced at the very lowest levels as well. Many of us joined the service loving strategy games like Risk, Axis and Allies, Settlers, etc. Bring that to a Secret-level, tactical wargame, and all of a sudden you get innovative tactics from those unburdened by institutionalized doctrine. Our adversaries are wily - we must be doubly so. The only way to test is to play.

<comment><USER3> I had to dig in a lot of libraries and bookstores for knowledge on armor warfare when I joined up _way back when_. I found a book that actually gave me a great baseline for setting up interactive scenarios called Armor Attacks: The Tank Platoon. I still use this for armor wargaming.

[http://www.amazon.com/Armor-Attacks-Interactive-Small- Unit-L...](http://www.amazon.com/Armor-Attacks-Interactive-Small-Unit- Leadership/dp/0891413839/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_1_T9PP?ie=UTF8&refRID=18A20CF0YBPAVVR9FTS6)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As one of the commenters on the USNI site said, I didn't realize naval wargaming had fallen so far. It sounds as though games like Harpoon are not used at all anymore, at least not in a serious fashion.

I think Armstrong is being a little optimistic about the benefits, though. Top Navy brass has a history of showing disdain when creative junior officers bust the shit out of their tactics and doctrine.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised to hear that this is a problem for the Navy, because it certainly wasn't a problem in the Marine Corps (a department of the Navy). Table top exercises were pushed all the way down to the lowest level in the infantry, with force on force exercises occurring at the company level. It was a common sight in the field, between exercises, to see squads huddled around dirt terrain models - gaming out scenarios with the squad leader acting as dungeon master. Some interesting ideas came out of those sessions, like prehooking tow straps on humvees and top down building clearing. A few times a year there would be battalion level exercises, where the officers got to play, but the enlisted were always running scenarios.

The lack of officer war gaming might explain why casualty projections for urban combat where so insanely high, stale information plugged into models that no longer fit reality.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm sure those interested enough in checking this thread may already know this but before the Battle of Midway, Japanese admirals ran a wargame to see how it may turn out.

Their wargame showed Japanense navy would lose with losing some big carriers. However rules were bent during the wargaming (or result ignored) and it erroneously showed Japan would win. Of course history proved their wargaming (unpolluted version) proved to be correct.

<comment><USER7> The Japanese probably didn't wargame the possibility that cryptography by the Allies revealed their plans. See [1], where General George Marshall is quoted as saying: "as a result of Cryptanalysis we were able to concentrate our limited forces to meet their naval advance on Midway when we otherwise would have been 3,000 miles out of place." [1]

[1] [http://www.navy.mil/midway/how.html](http://www.navy.mil/midway/how.html)

<comment><USER6> Highly recommend "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway". Great book on why Japanese navy was doomed to lose at Midway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here is some defense innovation: cease all violent activities and promote peace through passivity, treaty writing and well-to-do local economic development

<comment><USER9> It must be nice to have a division of unicorn cavalry at your command.

We will never be able to abolish war until we have first defeated fear. Until then, violence and the threat of violence will be an effective way to influence human behavior.</comment></comment>


Make visualization in markdown - <AUTHOR> https://markvis.js.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> So excited to share a markdown-it plugin which let you generate a visualization chart using several lines code.

\- The project homepage: [https://markvis.js.org/](https://markvis.js.org/) \- You can have a try online: [https://markvis-editor.js.org/](https://markvis- editor.js.org/) \- Source code: [https://github.com/geekplux/markvis](https://github.com/geekplux/markvis)

## Motivation

We often publish articles enriched with data, since data make them more convincing and easy to interpret. Hence, techniques that enable the embedding of visualization into texts are of great importance.

However, the most frequently used method now is to export charts as images, upload them into cloud, and then paste them into the editor. It is a tedious process from the perspective of a writer. Besides, image loading costs much more time than that of DOM elements, which leads to poor experience from the perspective of a reader.</comment>


Finding the name behind the gmail address - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/1113 <comment><USER2> Hmm. I just did the classic stupid thing. I tried this trick with the email name I had hoped to get, and it turned out the guy has the same name as me! Imagine that!

 _I had hoped to get email@example.com_

Going to bed is starting to sound pretty logical.

</comment><comment><USER3> awww... doesn't work anymore.

</comment><comment><USER4> wow thats crazy sauce. Is there a way to turn that off?

<comment><USER5> Change your name in Gmail? Why is it such a big deal, anyway? My email is my full name...I'll let you take a wild guess what that is.

<comment><USER6> Damn fool! How will you hide when you make asinine replies to people on Y combinator in a lame attempt at humor?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Flight Canvas – A Simple Solution to Finding Cheap Flights - <AUTHOR> http://flightcanvas.net <comment><AUTHOR> We are a small team who love to travel and are always asked how we find all these amazing flight deals. Truth is we spend about an hour a day looking at them and most of the time we can't use the deals we find. So we want someone to benefit from the unused flight deals. Instead of spending an hour a day looking, let us do the work!</comment>


NSA Backdoor Part 2, BULLDOZER: And, Learn How to DIY a NSA Hardware Implant - <AUTHOR> http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/nsa-bios-backdoor-aka-god-mode-malware-part-2-bulldozer/

<comment><AUTHOR> HN has a thread about part 1 of this writeup,

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8190023](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8190023)</comment>


Ignatious Sancho – first black Briton to vote in a British election - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_Sancho

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_30.html](http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_30.html)

> He worked as a servant in Greenwich and then for the Duke of Montagu. Sancho > taught himself to read and spoke out against the slave trade. He went on to > compose music and write poetry and plays. In 1773, Sancho and his wife set > up a grocer's shop in Westminster. Sancho was very well known and his shop > became a meeting place for some of the most famous writers, artists, actors > and politicians of the day. As a financially-independent householder, he > became the first black person of African origin to vote in parliamentary > elections in Britain (1774 & 1780).</comment>


Greek startups to look out for in 2016 - EU-Startups2014 http://www.eu-startups.com/2016/02/10-greek-startups-to-look-out-for-in-2016/ <comment><AUTHOR> It's true that the prolonged crisis and unemployment are (finally) pushing young people to start businesses. But there is very little "to look for" here, the best developers are leaving the country as soon as they have a good MVP.

The weather is great but prohibitive taxation (and social security contributions), confusing and sloppily implemented regulation, absence of infrastructure and bad work ethics don't help. It's much easier to set up shop in Cyprus.

<comment><USER2> plus political uncertainty. Do you have any experience with Cyprus? From what I ve heard Cyprus isnt that great either.

<comment><USER3> What have you heard? It's very very much greater. In fact it's one of the most popular "off shore" tax locations in Europe too.

<comment><USER2> In relation to how modern and competitive the dev community is. As far as the 'off shore taxing', bear in mind that media exaggerate a lot, it can be done, but you MUST have a good support team of accountants and lawyers.

<comment><USER3> > _In relation to how modern and competitive the dev community is._

Ah, yes. I wouldn't suggest it for having the offices there. Just to incorporate. And with online teams, you can be anywhere too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am considering outsourcing some dev work to Greece. The problem is the 70% social security. I can get good people in Greece for 1700 Euro/month, total cost 3k/month. However, in Hungary they cost only 2k/month. The Ukraine, Romania and Egypt are even cheaper. Greeks have great expertise in databases, but most outsourcing I need is front-end or monitoring stuff. Like most commentators have said, most of the good ones have left...

<comment><USER5> Why would you pay their social security? You'd be looking for freelancers who they'd be taking care of that themselves.

<comment><USER6> They will still be taking care of that out of what they get paid, I don't see any difference.

<comment><USER5> Huge difference.

Since they're freelancers you're just going to be one of many clients. They will charge you only for the hours worked. This means that whatever their social security cost is, it's going to be spread out among their different clients. Also when you're a freelancer the social security cost is much lower anyway.

<comment><USER7> So what? You're still calculating the per month cost. Insurance us always going to be included in that.

<comment><USER5> It's not a "so what". Taking care of an employee's social security is a huge overhead for an employer.

Also the OP is talking about "outsourcing" work to Greece. I really don't understand where social security comes in. By definition he's going to look for freelancers.

Unless he's planning to open shop in Greece, for some weird reason, in which case social insurance is going to be the least of his problems.

<comment><USER8> As a freelancer, the cost to cover my taxes/social security will be calculated into any offer i give. I am in effect employing myself and you are contracting out an employee of my company. The rate given will need to cover the costs of my employees taxes and social security. True i can contract out myself to multiple clients per month and lower my rate by splitting the SS taxes between them. but, in Greece, you run a high risk of work being canceled/delayed and exposing yourself to tax liabilities. Don't get me started on companies that want you to cut an invoice then pay you months later. Putting yourself into a situation where you have income on the books, but not in the hand is a bad idea.

<comment><USER6> > True i can contract out myself to multiple clients per month and lower my > rate by splitting the SS taxes between them

Even that doesn't matter, social security and taxes will be calculated in your hourly rate the same way whether you have multiple clients or you work full time for only one client.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Greece is a bad place to start company. It is practically impossible to transfer money abroad. Complex and fast changing law system. And its expensive compared to neighbor countries.

<comment><USER10> It's not so terrible if you are in Greece. I would not call a 500euro base salary expensive, that might even get you someone with postgraduate studies in the current conditions. On the law system I totally agree. Good for law related startups?

<comment><USER11> Greek here. That 500 base salary doesn't exist. While the nominal salary is quite low due to the huge unemployment issue, for computer programmers it is way beyond that. You're looking at least at €1k monthly for an entry-level programmer. The real problem in Greece right now, as others have mentioned in this thread, is the insurance cost which accounts for 70% of the net salary someone receives. So if you want to pay €2k for a salary, the real cost for the corporation is about €3.5k. Which makes it really hard to employ experienced people unless you're willing to have under-the-table agreements.

<comment><USER12> Doesn't that just result in 90% of decent and up programmers illegally making €1k - €2k on freelancer.com or alike ? Then when it's enough to finance trip + 6 months emigrate to US or, well, anywhere but Greece ?

<comment><USER11> I've never been at freelancer or any equivalent site so I can't speak from personal experience. Aren't you expected to provide some kind of receipt on those sites for the money you're paid? In such a case you can't hide it from the local tax service. Unless you're providing fake receipts which sounds like an awful idea.

<comment><USER12> The receipts are between the middleman and either party, not between the participants in the transaction directly.

So even if seller and buyer are in Greece, freelancer.com (warning: don't use them) is in Australia. Receipts won't make it to the authorities. Also: freelancer.com won't care if you use a fake identity, as they're extremely scummy and in this case it works to your advantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was all "why are these all in Greece", then re-read the headline to notice it did not say "Geek startups".

</comment><comment><USER14> Is this a joke? This must be some kind of submarine PR to encourage investment in Greece. Greece needs to attract investors and startups by liberalizing their economic positions, not by bs like this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like the website publishes similar lists for various countries. I don't think it's intentional, but it's weird that it made it to the frontpage of HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unfortunately in Greece of 2016 and for 7 years of crisis now there has been nothing made to help business. Every government passed and left without improving bureaucracy and limiting corruption even a little bit on the government services. And these stuff are FREE! What can you expect from such a bad business legislative framework? Right now the taxation, even without the payments in advance the government asks from the enterprises, exceeds 80%! Who can make business with such numbers?

</comment><comment><USER16> lol.</comment>


Stories – Medium clone built with Rails - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/michelson/dante-stories <comment><USER2> I've just revisited Rails after being away for 4-5 years, mostly doing frontend development. First impressions are it's extremly productive. With Turbolinks and Webpacker you can get a very near SPA responsiveness just using traditioional server side rendering and sprinkels of JS. Most of it comes out of the box, while the setup for a similar approach in e.g. Django would require a lot of time spent on setting up things, researching best practices, etc.

Did a simple test to evaluate: Make a simple note taking app with user auth and sprinkle in a React component. Took me half an hour to have the basic functionality in place. So far I haven't seen any framework with Rail's level of productivity.

<comment><USER3> It's actually very annoying. I want Node or Go or Kotlin or something to eat Rails' lunch. It's good to have competition. But nobody has come close to the developer ergonomics and the sheer development speed of Rails.

<comment><USER4> Counterpoint: Rails is not efficient for new developers who need to get up to speed on it. Other tools are more straightforward to onboard devs; just follow the API docs and read the code. With Rails you need Rails experts.

<comment><USER5> As someone who trains devs on rails I find that's not true.

In my experience if you have a developer of any experience level go through the full Rails tutorial they come out on the other side highly productive. I usually have people on my team do this on their own time and they usually finish within the first two weeks of work.

What I will say is that the implicit, convention over configuration approach of rails means you really do have to RTFM. I find that the more experienced a developer is the more resistant they tend to be to this. But in general they all get over it after they read the manual.

<comment><USER6> > What I will say is that the implicit, convention over configuration approach > of rails means you really do have to RTFM.

And there you have it. Most devs I have ever worked with hardly read docs beyond as reference material.

To be fair, effective documentation (beyond just api reference) is hard and time consuming. I have a lot of respect for the projects that have documentation _worth_ reading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you're looking for a self-hosted blog that looks like medium I can also recommend Ghost: [https://ghost.org](https://ghost.org)

Pretty easy to set up, quite simple and open source.

<comment><USER8> Or just use a static site generator like Jekyll ([https://jekyllrb.com/](https://jekyllrb.com/))

<comment><USER9> Ghost 2.0 basically has an exact clone of the Medium editor which is important to some people. But of course it depends on how you prefer to write.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there any reason why devs choose elasticsearch to implement basic site search functionality when Postgres full text search functionality would be sufficient?

Real question, because introducing another dependency like elastic over postgresql seems overkill.

<comment><USER11> I implemented full text search in Rails with a PostgreSQL the other day and it was very straightforward. I used the pg_search gem but rolling my own query wouldn't have been too difficult. The best part is I can simply merge my search scope into the usual record-displaying eager loading Rails code and everything just works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> OP! Nice of you to ship this. We need more of editors and self publishing platforms. I tried creating an editor a few years ago at my last job [1]. It is really hard to get _all things_ correct when implementing your editor, with all quirks that contendeditable has.

[1]([http://hindi.yourstory.com/editor](http://hindi.yourstory.com/editor))

</comment><comment><USER13> Rails isnt very intriguing in 2018, atleast for the minds that seek novelty. A Blog Engine in Rails in 2018 is like, A Website written in Java in 1999. If you are someone who is re-visiting Rails after a few yrs, you realise they haven't learnt anything, they are still creating breaking changes entire API rewrites, new methods that do the same stuff that old ones did, but atleast makes it sound new. Mostly vanity changes.

<comment><USER14> There have been some improvements like adding instant messaging and webpack. Here's the end of DHHs 2018 keynote:

>Let's continue to compress the concepts that are worth keeping, reject the ones that aren't, broaden the base of people who can actually have a chance to write this software that's eating the world, such that the software that we end up with is software the benefits the world.

I think that's what's interesting - reducing the technical complexity to allow more focus on building things that are interesting in the real world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What is the modern, best practice for * quickly * integrating rails with python based ML like scikit learn or keras for an mvp?

<comment><USER14> Not sure about best but there's this [https://www.practicalai.io/using-scikit- learn-machine-learni...](https://www.practicalai.io/using-scikit-learn- machine-learning-library-in-ruby-using-pycall/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ctrl + f "flask" no results - what gives

</comment><comment><USER17> Looks to just be an implemented instance of Stories. Github is here:

[https://github.com/hibiken/stories](https://github.com/hibiken/stories)

Project appears stale, unless someone else has picked up the development.

<comment><USER18> Thanks. Since the submission seems to be intended to be about the platform itself, we've updated the link from [https://dante- stories.herokuapp.com/](https://dante-stories.herokuapp.com/).

<comment><USER19> Dante Stories appears to be a maintained fork of Stories.

[https://github.com/michelson/dante- stories](https://github.com/michelson/dante-stories)

<comment><USER20> Ok, we've changed to that from [https://github.com/hibiken/stories](https://github.com/hibiken/stories).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The web site linked has very few details.

Whenever I read "Ruby on Rails", I can't help but think back to when it was the latest fad and everyone was playing with it, but then every single project would break whenever any of the 82 dependencies needed to be updated due to security issues.

Since this site has no details, I've lost interest since I have no intention of revisiting that shitshow without someone telling me it's somehow different, that the dependency nightmare is now fixed. Pretty or not, projects which require significant energy to just keep up with security updates aren't worth it.

<comment><USER2> What would be an example of a language/framework for web development that avoids the dependency shitshow you describe?

<comment><USER22> Not OP, but it's completely possible to build a complete webapp with just two dependencies: Python/Django and a database adaptor for PostgreSQL/MySQL.

<comment><USER2> Of course. The same is true for Rails. Realistically though, wouldn't a Django developer -- like say a Rails developer, a C# developer or a JS developer -- usually add some convenient packages?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I'm Against Podcasts - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/are-podcasts-killing-music-or-just-wasting-our-time/2019/04/17/0aa08770-5acc-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html <comment><USER2> _> Podcasts are bad because podcasts sound bad — and podcasts sound bad because podcasters aren't thinking hard enough about what their talk sounds like._

But this is exactly why we should cherish podcasts! They're one of the last vestiges of the old, weird, free Internet that we have left.

Podcasts (mostly) sound bad because the people making them are (mostly) amateurs, which means they don't know the ins and outs of audio recording. They just hooked up a crappy USB mic to their laptop and started podcasting. And once they did that, there was no central corporate gatekeeper who could turn them off and tell them to come back when they knew what they were doing.

All of which, yes, results in a lot of crappy podcasts. But consider the alternative. Do we really _want_ to see one more wide open indie publishing channel turn into bland, pre-digested corporate mush? Is the problem with podcasting that it's not enough like Facebook? Because that's the alternative: one more medium where all the weirdness has been wrung out, except for those random bits of weirdness that happen to tickle an algorithm that makes some corporate overseer another nickel.

Maybe that is what you want, I dunno. If so, don't worry! Now that people with money have taken notice of podcasts, there are plenty of would-be corporate overseers lining up to give it to you as we speak.

<comment><USER3> I don't know why you're talking about "the ins and outs of audio recording". The author makes clear that's not what he's talking about. In the very next sentence after your quote he writes:

>Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the thing that derails most podcasts is the blab.

And later on he explains _again_.

>By "sound good," I meant that I wanted podcasts to sound considered.

Anyway, I think this is just a matter of taste. I imagine the author also hates talk radio/sports radio. You know those 2-hour shows about the Philadelphia sports or whatever?

Much of podcasting is essentially the modern take on that. Of course, it isn't "considered". Of course it has "blab". That's kind of the whole point -- it is filling in a connection/emotional gap that people aren't getting in their day to day lives.

<comment><USER4> I, too, dislike the "eavesdropping on other people's tipsy pub conversation" genre of podcasts. I generally don't love the professionalized "least common denominator of an NPR listening audience's tastes, delivered in carefully rehearsed NPR voice" podcasts, either.

My solution is to not bother with those podcasts. There are so many others that I find to be more worthy of my time. Admittedly, it's probably a small fraction of all podcasts, but it still amounts to more than I could possibly find the time to listen to.

<comment><USER5> When do people take in their podcasts? I'm thinking it's during he work commute or at work?

<comment><USER6> I did a bit of a study of this as I was involved with a podcasting related startup at one point.

It's really varied:

\- Most podcast consumption is via smartphone

\- A big chunk of that is on iOS (because default Podcast app placement is inconsistent across Android flavors)

\- Heaviest consumption during commutes

\- Significant consumption during the workday: white collar people listening in the background - often from their desktop/web while or blue collar in place of radio and music

\- You also have people doing things like playing video games and listening to podcasts regularly.

<comment><USER7> I guess I've never really understood the background sound thing. It's not like I need silence; I have no trouble working in a coffeeshop for example. But I mostly don't even turn on music as background much less something like a podcast. And, when traveling with people, one thing that always drove me crazy was the person whose initial reflex on walking into a room was to turn on the TV as background.

<comment><USER8> _> I guess I've never really understood the background sound thing._

I sometimes find complete or near complete silence off-puttingly artificial. It puts me in mind of an exam room. Any sound that does happen (including my typing) seems oddly exaggerated and therefore a little distracting.

If I'm properly concentrating I don't notice, so often I'll put on something short for background noise as I start a period of trying to get something done and don't replace it when it finishes as the need has passed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article is fantastic, because it lays out exactly why I love podcasts.

Podcasts are to audio what punk rock was to music: freedom to be an amateur. Was punk for everyone? Nope. Were punks particularly talented? Some were, but mostly nope. Yet punk became one of the most influential genres of music of all time because it gave you permission to suck.

It's like what's been said about the Velvet Underground: They never made it big, but almost everyone who went to one of their concerts or bought one of their albums started a band of their own. (The same was later said of The Pixies.)

Sure, there's a lot of garbage. But it's real. It's raw. It's people finding their voice.

I couldn't be happier to see the elites complaining about podcasts. Just add it to the pile of people complaining about punk, YouTube, ebook self- publishing, blogging, and all the other ways we're free to express ourselves today.

<comment><USER10> Lou Reed made it pretty big though.

I agree with the article. Especially this part:

> Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the > thing that derails most podcasts is the blab. There are two kinds, more or > less. The first is that soft, inquisitive staccato popularized by Ira Glass > on "This American Life," the source from which so much pod-voice appears to > have sprung. The second mode is performative in a different way, and you > hear it on most round-table podcasts — a tone that people use at parties > when they want to be heard by people that they aren't necessarily talking > to. And it's pretty much one or the other. Be podcasted to in a cozy, overly > considered way, or be podcasted at in a hastier, less-considered way.

There's something phoney about podcasts. I see most podcasts as similiar to TED talks or books by Malcolm Gladwell. These things are the opposite of Punk, which feels real, even when it's shitty.

That doesn't mean there can't be good podcasts or that there aren't any, but the dominant format seems pretty lifeless to me.

<comment><USER9> > Lou Reed made it pretty big though.

Not compared to the influence he had on other musicians. The general music loving public is not THAT familiar with him. He was a musician's musician. (Also an asshole and abuser of women, which has nothing to do with this discussion, but I can't praise him without mentioning this.)

> There's something phoney about podcasts. I see most podcasts as similar to > TED talks or books by Malcolm Gladwell.

Ironically, Malcolm's podcast "Broken Records" has an episode where Rick Rubin discusses this, in a way. He said something to the effect that all musicians start out copying their favorite musicians, until they find their own sound.

I think this is the same for podcasts. Most podcasters are new to the form, so they haven't had the time to find their voice yet. They're still figuring it out.

Ira Glass himself speaks to this point:

"Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it's just not that good. It's trying to be good, it has potential, but it's not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn't have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I've ever met. It's gonna take awhile. It's normal to take awhile. You've just gotta fight your way through."

<comment><USER10> Sure, The Velvet Underground's influence on pop music exceeded their popularity, but they were relatively successful, just not compared to The Beatles or to Dylan (who influenced Lou Reed and The Beatles).

But who is The Velvet Underground of podcasts? Who is the punk of podcasts? It's not Ira Glass. I'm not saying you're wrong to celebrate the "democratization of long form audio" but the popular stuff seems milquetoast to me. And that's what's being criticized here, though maybe a bit too broadly.

<comment><USER9> > the popular stuff seems milquetoast

Isn't that true of any medium?

I don't know who the Velvet Underground of podcasts would be. I wouldn't have recognized VU when they were getting started either.

I suspect this is the sort of thing that's easier to recognize when looking back.

I certainly didn't understand punk the way I do now back when I was a punk rocker. All I knew was I could play a little bass (badly) with some friends who played guitar and drums (badly) and sing (badly) and we had a blast doing it. Yet today, looking back, I see so many top-notch musicians who credit punk for the work they've been able to produce.

Of course, this may be my way of passing the buck. "Wait and see" is an easy way for me to dismiss your argument, and I apologize for that. It could be that in 10-20 years we'll look back at podcasting and say, "Meh, that didn't really amount to anything." But I suspect that won't be the case.

(As for my 2 cents on who's killing it at podcasting... I'm personally a fan of the Cracked podcast. It's always entertaining and educational to boot.)

<comment><USER10> You've convinced me that "I'm Against Podcasts" is a stupid statement.

I think you're absolutely on-point for saying that, 10-20 years from now, we'll look back on podcasts that are widely acknowledged as classic.

At the same time, I think criticisms by this author are mostly valid and probably helpful (inasmuch as they push people to innovate and take risks with the medium). The criticisms are just overly broad and they ought to be aimed more clearly at specific trends within in the medium rather than the medium itself.

<comment><USER9> Like I said, "This article is fantastic" :-)

The author isn't wrong, in that you can't really be wrong about a subjective opinion. The man dislikes podcasts, and that's a-ok.

I just happen to love them for all the same reasons he hates them. He's right that far too many podcasts sound like Ira Glass wannabes. He's right that the production quality isn't very high most of the time. There's plenty of garbage.

But the fact that podcasting allows garbage to exist? That's pure gold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this whole piece is a pretty bizarre exercise.

> I consider [podcasts] an enemy of music. [...] With all of the world's > unheard songs beckoning us with their endless mystery, why would anyone > choose to waste their precious listening hours on a podcast?

This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's arguing that apples are the enemy of oranges. "With so many delicious oranges uneaten, why should anyone waste their time consuming a mealy, flavorless apple?" At least apples and oranges are both types of fruit. I don't think there is anything to be learned by debating the relative worth of two different types of media. He has his reasons for disliking podcasts, but they sound very personal. If he is annoyed by how podcast hosts talk, for example, that is simply how he experiences it. Others will have a completely different perception.

<comment><USER12> The commenters over there are falling into the same trap hard. So many variations of "Why would I listen to this when I could just read the information quicker?" Who are these people who cannot fathom that people may want to listen to something mildly informative while they are otherwise unable to focus on reading? Or just have an easier time absorbing information audibly rather than visually? Or even that someone would listen to something because hearing another human voice provides a value beyond pure information?

Really though, I just wonder how valuable these people think their time really is? I assume their "I need to be absorbing optimal information at all times" shtick is supposed to come across as smart, but it just comes across as a little slow.

<comment><USER13> It's not about valuable time, it's about the low bandwidth. That's why I also, in general, don't watch Youtube videos that try to explain theoretical concepts. It's like watching paint dry, when I could just read it in a small fraction of the time if the material is available in written form. At least Youtube videos are useful where the visual is important, e.g. repair instructions. Podcasts don't even have that. The only time (in my particular situation) where podcasts could be an alternative is when I'm driving my car, but my commute is very short, so in practice there's never a time where I would want to listen to a podcast. How each of us feel about bandwidth is, of course, completely individual.

<comment><USER14> You can speed up videos. 3x is easy and efficient.

<comment><USER13> I forgot to add that in addition to the bandwidth issue, it's also about the sequential nature of podcasts and videos. I like to move back and forth when I'm learning something. E.g. an explanation that I want to re-read after reading something more, for a better understanding. So for me it's the slow input _and_ the sequential nature of audio and video that I don't like, for the most part. With some execptions, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's pretty clear what's happening here: the author prefers music to podcasts, and then tries his best to make some sort of argument to justify this. His arguments are at best nonsensical and at worst completely contradictory.

I was considering writing out a response to each of his points but it's honestly not worth my time. A lot of what the author says is a blatant slap in the face to podcasters that spend so many hours tinkering with their work. Quotes like "By sound good, I meant that I wanted podcasts to sound considered." and "...podcasters aren't thinking hard enough about what their talk sounds like" are ridiculous if you know any serious or notable podcaster in person.

One reason why this might be happening [to the author] is because the author wants podcasts to be more like music, but the reality is that even though music and podcasts are competing for the same resource (ears) their goals are mostly different. The primary differentiating factor is that podcasts almost always aim to convey some concrete information to the listener, and this constraint will always limit the ways the information can be transmitted to the listener (as opposed to music, which is more free-form in nature and isn't necessarily subjected to any restrictions).

<comment><USER16> His half explained defence of music being less listened to was pretty strange.

Who cares if people listen to less music? Most people were listening to recycled top 40 trash on radio before podcasts became accessible in cars and on smartphones. I'd personally rather people learn stuff or hear about interesting topics while they drive than hear the same song for the 30th time.

A lot of crap passes for podcasts but so does modern journalism where the click baity headlines are the only interesting part of the story.

<comment><USER17> > Who cares if people listen to less music?

The writer here is a pop music critic, so his paycheck comes from people listening to and being interested in music.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What an edgy, contrarian critique.

Watch as the author translates his criticisms of some podcasts that he doesn't like into a global criticism of all podcasts.

I wonder if this guy still insists on listening _exclusively_ to LPs and lossless audio formats.

Here are some things about podcasts that I love:

* some podcasts are true gems -- extremely high quality content

* free

* no ads or ads are trivial to avoid

* blather that I (and apparently the author) don't like can be trivially skipped

* rule 34 for podcasts: someone is making podcasts about everything

Did I mention occasionally extremely high quality, free, and no ads?

<comment><USER19> Can you point me to some high quality podcasts? Most I have listened to have so much fluff and unnecessary banter that I subconsciously tune out.

I have been trying to get on the podcast bandwagon but having a hard time finding something to like.

<comment><USER20> noagendashow.com

<comment><USER21> And congressionaldish.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This was the best quote of the article for me:

 _Forget the lousy microphones and the dinky interstitial stock music — the thing that derails most podcasts is the blab. There are two kinds, more or less. The first is that soft, inquisitive staccato popularized by Ira Glass on "This American Life," the source from which so much pod-voice appears to have sprung._

The ubiquitous NPR Voice/Sound is really what turns me off from podcasts/audiobooks/etc. While I love NPR, their sound is absolutely grating to listen to. Too HD, rife with extremely loud and detailed plosives and sibilants. I don't want to listen to the speaker suck the spit back down their throats in excruciating detail after every sentence.

NPR's sound quality is _too detailed_. It's like if you watched a video of someone talking and could see the aftermath of a popped zit smack in the middle of your screen.

<comment><USER23> That's fascinating, because the NPR sound is just a close-mic'd Neumann U87 microphone with the bass roll-off engaged:

[https://current.org/2015/06/a-top-audio-engineer-explains- np...](https://current.org/2015/06/a-top-audio-engineer-explains-nprs- signature-sound/)

The U87 is a classic mic first made in 1967 and used on everything. Lots of famous pop song vocals are still recorded with a U87 to this day. And they're expensive, they cost $3200 new at Sweetwater.

The U87 is a Condenser microphone, while the RE20 mentioned in the article is a Dynamic - I wonder if maybe you don't like the sound of condensers mics in general. They typically have a crisper high-end that catch a lot of detail.

<comment><USER24> I imagine if you listened to the vocal stem it would sound as extreme. It's just masked by other noise or gated/sliced out most of the time. Some people make a feature of those noises; Muse is an obvious example and they certainly divide people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was never really into podcasts until I started my current job and commuting regularly. After a while I noticed that listening to music was beginning to fuel my frustration with other drivers and I'd get to work already stressed out. I started listening to talk radio and podcasts and that has really improved my feelings on the road and my state of mind walking into the office.

I honestly don't think it has really impacted my music listening either. I'll toss something on at work and listen while I work through a problem or while reading. The type of music I listen has shifted to fit my purposes but it is still there and I don't see it going away either.

<comment><USER26> I too have a commute, and find podcasts a nice way to stay current with news, learn something new, or hear about new stuff in areas that are interesting to you.

I can't really listen to podcasts while working since I can't really focus on the the talking while thinking about what I'm doing, so music is perfect. It can help keep me focused and gives me plenty of time for exploring new music.

The author's stance on Podcasts is just so odd. That you somehow can't enjoy both? Seems like he has an axe to grind or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The single word that comes to mind when reading this: "Waaaaaaah!!!"

I listen to podcasts because I learn from them or am entertained by specific people with insights and expertise I appreciate. The whole bit about eavesdropping on a conversation is the essence of what makes a good podcast: it's a conversation that if you caught a part of it in real life you would stop and stand at the edge to listen and learn more. And the __best __podcasts involve listener feedback, sometimes in real-time.

Perhaps the ultimate irony of the assertion that podcasting is killing music is that podcasting was INVENTED by an MTV VJ and former disk jockey, Adam Curry, and that the ORIGINAL podcast -- The Daily Source Code -- was heavily focused on music and ultimately shut down because RIAA lawyers leveled a massive legal threat at Adam even after he had purchased online music licensing to cover his podcast.

What podcasting does is decentralize the exchange of information: it destroys the ability of a powerful few to be the gatekeepers of information or "pick the hits." That's why "they" hate it and why it will only increase as a medium over time.

<comment><USER28> Adam Curry came up with the name but people were embedding media in RSS feeds before that.

<comment><USER7> Actually, Ben Hammersley seems to have come up with the name. Adam Curry and Dave Winer are usually credited with the concept but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you had embedded media in RSS earlier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow, talk about gatekeeping.

I think podcasts are wonderful, a form of media that has very low barriers to entry and where the smaller players can compete with the big boys on a relatively level playing field.

So what if a lot of podcasts are crap? If the podcaster enjoys it and someone listens then good for them.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

<comment><USER30> Literal gatekeeping - I just get a paywall when I click on the link.

Aaand nothing of value was lost.

<comment> 52-6F-62 I'm sure even podcasters like to be paid for their work—whether you agree with what they're saying or not.

I hear a large number of podcasters slide their commercials and sponsors in as if they're not being sponsored at all—and there are no communications regulations focusing on subversive use of advertisements in those contexts.

There is space for the good in the podcast world, but I wouldn't assume it's superior be default. Fool's errand, IMO.

<comment><USER30> I'm referring solely to the link to the Washington Post article. No article comes up, just a paywall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Podcasts are talk radio on demand. If you're against podcasts, you're against talk radio. Or at the very least, you're against making talk radio more convenient and accessible.

<comment><USER2> I feel like podcasts are similar to, but not exactly the same as, talk radio. Most talk radio formats are built around listeners calling in, for instance, which can provide a degree of spontaneity that isn't possible in a prerecorded format like a podcast.

(Which gives me an excuse to link to the classic _Mr. Show_ sketch, "Pre-Taped Call-In Show": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhVbLJvYP8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhVbLJvYP8s))

That being said, I do think the appeal of podcasts is pretty close to what people find appealing about talk radio: people like to hear other people talk.

<comment><USER32> I always hated it when listeners called in on talk radio. They very rarely had anything insightful to day, and even if they did, they general weren't able to convey it clearly.

<comment> frosted-flakes I always inwardly cringe when they start going off topic and the host keeps trying to rein them in. But when it's someone who knows how to present themselves on radio, it's good.

There's this one show on CBC where listeners call in to a plant expert about their gardening problems, and he identifies them and suggests solutions on the spot. You get a wide variety of people who call in, but since the roles are reversed—callers are asking questions, not answering them—they tend to be much more to the point and willing to give up the floor. Despite not caring one whit about plants and gardening, I really enjoy this show.

If the expert doesn't know the answer, sometimes another listener will call in to save the day. One of my favourite ones is when a lady's tree saplings were starting to die after they got a new well drilled, and after a bunch of questions the plant expert was stumped. Well, a well driller called in a few minutes later and said it was almost certainly the oil coating used on the pipes to prevent rust during storage (totally safe for consumption, but apparently harmful to trees), and the solution was to wait until the oil wore off after a few months.

It sounds boring, but the plant expert is one of those old men who just have a way with words, and the CBC host is really good with prompting both the expert and caller with more questions or anecdotes.

<comment><USER33> "Gardener's Question Time" on the BBC is the same kind of soothing listening

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardeners%27_Question_Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardeners%27_Question_Time)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> >With all of the world's unheard songs beckoning us with their endless mystery, why would anyone choose to waste their precious listening hours on a podcast?

Yoy could replace podcast with pretty much anything. I don't like listening to music all of the time or doing any one thing all of the time for that matter. I get bored and I just don't enjoy it as much anymore. And really, I love music. I used to want a job like Radio DJ where I could listen to music all day and I love coding because I mostly get to do that. But, I don't want to listen to all the music ever created because a lot of it just isn't for me and the mystery stops feeling endless after a while. My listening hours aren't precious to me if I listen on the commute, 8+ hours at work, and at home when I'm doing chores. Every single day. I wish those hours were more precious sometimes. I'd love for music to feel as meaningful to me as it did when I was a teenager when I only had a few CDs and new music was a big purchase or something given to me by a friend. But now it's like I'm drowning in too many options and I'm just shuffling through different playlists trying to find something that sounds interesting. So I listen to Audiobooks or Podcasts or just my own head radio if I can. It's not wasted time at all because it helps me enjoy music more in the long run.

This really is a terrible article and it seems like an immature opinion to have. I'm surprised to see it in the Washington Post.

<comment><USER35> I would think a way to recapture the meaning and mystique of music listening is not necessarily to throttle your listening time, but rather to more intentionally explore different genres & curate your own taste. The kind of aimless browsing you describe can happen at any duration of listening per week, if we allow it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This article reads like a wordy extension of the author's "Twitter fit". I feel like I read a lot of "I tweeted something" articles these days.

Ironic that the one tidbit about how it "sounds" (but not actually talking about sounds) is about people wanting to be heard, and the foundation of this is "I tweeted something one day".

<comment><USER37> I don't mind the tweet follow-up articles at all - in fact I'd hope that writers with a platform would use said platform to expound on their twitter musings more often. Twitter is perfect for taking the temperature on an issue.

That said - I felt that this article was a bit of a waste of the initial interest the tweet garnered.

<comment><USER36> I feel like Twitter is a terrible medium to take temperature of anything.

The medium is the message and Twitter only serves to push a very inane sort of message / response.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's weird that this article is upvoted but every commenter agrees that it's worthless. Every point he makes falls flat, and it feels like pointless contrarianism. It's fine if you don't like podcasts, guy.

</comment><comment><USER39> >Why does an experience so inherently intimate feel so alienating to me?

Because you're an obsessive extravert who's unable to enjoy a conversation you're not part of.

>so instead of treating podcasts as a convenient way to feel smarter

Author says that and then proceeds to do that the whole article. Every single podcast he tried was some hoity-toity artsy interview cast. I listen to podcasts to be entertained. I listen to people play Dungeons and Dragons, or narrate short stories, or improv comedy, or publish their own audio book.

>I'm anxious about music ceding all of that time and turf to the rise of "big podcast,

Good god, what a fucking douchecanoe this guy is.

<comment><USER40> Douchecanoe. You nailed it. Nothing like a pointless rant that tries to pin your extremely personal experience on the masses. Thanks WP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I like the idea of podcasts because of the amateur angle, not so much since it's basically just another version of talk radio. I don't doubt there is some loss in social contact if you use a recording to fill-in for conversation, but there's something a little off-putting about music too.

It worries me sometimes that (given my age) 'More Than a Feeling' or 'Hold On Loosely' are so etched into my brain...and I'm a jazz listener/musician. Why is that? They live next to old commercial jingles and show the amount of programming that can go on in the 'independent' mind.

To finish up my old man rant, it's funny how modern people need constant noise and a steady supply of sweet beverages to avoid unease. Maybe there's a book here on the curative value of quiet walks and drinking plain water, it wouldn't be very long though.

<comment> 52-6F-62 > _Maybe there 's a book here on the curative value of quiet walks and > drinking plain water, it wouldn't be very long though._

I like the sound of that one. You should put it together.

Leave some blank pages for breathing room. Some nice binding, fine paper selection, and care in type choices.

Are we collaborating now?

<comment><USER41> Only the finest handmade paper will be used.

<comment><USER41> But first, a smartphone app to manage the water consumption and walking times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is just an ad for a book. He wraps it inside an inflammatory opinion piece. But it's really just an ad. Why isn't that obvious to people?

<comment><USER43> Thank you. I wish newspapers would stop this deceptive practice or openly mark the "article" as an ad. It's far worse than clickbait titles to me since I can immediately spot the clickbait, but you won't realize the article is an ad until you've read the damn thing.

<comment><USER44> > "Ways of Hearing." It's a podcast — recently transposed into a book

> I've been pushing "Ways of Hearing" on my loved ones

All podcasts are bad, but a book about a podcast is okay because I can sell it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Summary: Bad boring and podcasts with low production value are bad and boring and have low production value.

</comment><comment><USER46> Podcasts are radio on demand. They offer all the variety that radio does, or did, and more. They can offer the quality of a good commercial radio show, or the quality of a rotting potato, or anything in between. It's up to you to find something you like. There's so much out there that there is probably something you'll like.

So many of these comments talk as though "podcast" implies news or commentary and that's it. Did I stumble into an alternate universe? I know those exist (news and commentary podcasts exist, that is), but there's so much more. The closest I get are news-related comedy shows like Wait Wait or the BBC's Now Show. I'm always on the lookout for the next episode of Welcome to Night Vale, and on the rare occasions that there's a new Hardcore History, it's a real treat. If I run out of something new, I love to listen to an episode or two of the old Dragnet radio series and get immersed in 1950's Los Angeles.

Podcasts are inferior to text or video? That's like saying that cheese is inferior to the Central Limit Theorem. The comparison doesn't even make sense.

I basically can't listen to podcasts without something physical to do. If I'm idle and trying to listen, I'll start reading something at the same time and miss half the show. But while I'm out for a walk or doing yard work or cooking or on a long drive? They're the best! Text or video aren't sensible there. The only competition would be radio (or, ugh, my own thoughts), where the comparison is just like the comparison between live TV and video on demand.

</comment><comment><USER47> Huh, its funny because I always thought I hated podcasts because of the typical NPR sound. I love a ton of low budget podcasts now and feel like its a lot more normal/organic to listen to people on lower budget mics than the NPR style mic/sound production.

</comment><comment><USER48> It seems the author doesn't like bad podcasts.

If you came to the comments to see if there was anything of substance about the article, don't worry, you're free to move on. ;)

</comment><comment><USER49> Listening a big chunk of my free time to various podcasts, I reluctantly come to the conclusion that the biggest enemy of podcasts is _thinking_ and _introspection_. Where before I had moments in my day where I let my mind freely wander and think to the issues I'm currently working on or others, now I rarely have these moments anymore as I listen to podcasts more. I wish I reverted a bit, but it's difficult, listening podcasts has become a kind of addiction I guess.

<comment><USER50> I've commented about it before--I was listening to podcasts way too much and it destroyed my creativity. I've cut down to 3 shows, which comes out to about 3-4 hours of content a week, and I try to save it for washing dishes, cooking dinner, or driving. My suggestion: trim the fat, pick a couple podcasts you really enjoy and unsubscribe from the rest, then resist the urge to hit 'play' as you're getting dressed in the morning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I wonder how he feels about NPR or BBC? I listen to a lot of podcasts but they are almost all round-table style shows. I very occasionally catch This American Life on NPR but I have very little interest in listening to all the scripted shows that seem to be imitating it and I have zero interest in true crime.

</comment><comment><USER52> The difference between an edited and an un-edited conversation is night and day. Editing takes out all the stumbles, half-sentences, unfinished ideas etc.

The reason it's not more common? Recording a 2 hour podcast takes 2 hours. Recording and editing a 2 hour podcast takes closer to 10.

</comment><comment><USER53> Why is this taking up space on the Washington Post? Doesn't this belong on a personal blog or on twitter? Or better yet in private diary? My response is as follows: I'm against self-indulgent, curmudgeonly writing like this intended for public consumption being given the patina of approval by respectable publications like the Washington Post.

</comment><comment><USER54> I don't like podcasts. The reason I don't like podcasts, though, is the same reason I don't like talk radio or television. If I want to listen to people, I will talk to people myself.

This is not an indictment of podcasts. Rather, it is a personal opinion. And I think the author of this article is confusing his opinion for a general truth.

<comment><USER55> I agree about unedited podcasts where people just talk to each other, but there are excellent podcasts that are closer to documentaries or audio books (Hardcore History, for example). They're pre-written, heavily edited, and performed well.

<comment><USER54> And that's just fine, except I don't have any interest in sitting and listening to such things. Other people are totally welcome to enjoy them; I just spend my free time on other things.

<comment><USER56> Generally, you don't just sit and listen. You do it while doing something else that is non-audio, like commuting or exercising or cleaning or cooking or...

<comment><USER54> I don't multitask. I follow the philosophy of committing the entirety of my attention to one task at a time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Since we're on the topic of podcasts and the article at hand has been pilloried to my satisfaction, I have an unrelated question for other podcast listeners.

Have you ever listened to the same podcast twice and experienced strong, even intrusive visual recollections of what you were doing the first time you listened to it? I find it particularly true from when I'm walking or driving while listening, but my memory is usually terrible and to have these photographic experiences is alien and awesome at the same time.

<comment><USER58> Yes, especially when driving. Sometimes it feels like I should be reaching for gear stick at the same time as I previously did. It does feel bizarre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Counterpoint: Podcasts can have an immediacy about them that the written word can't compete with.

I'm not talking about the long-form "Serial"-type or magazine "This American Life" style podcasts. Those are very scripted and rehearsed. Rather, I'm talking about a lot of the topical shows I listen to.

Having a few people with chemistry discussing their topic, where they can riff and improvise and be themselves, can be incredibly interesting in the way the written word can't.

</comment><comment><USER60> > Podcasts are bad because podcasts sound bad — and podcasts sound bad because > podcasters aren't thinking hard enough about what their talk sounds like.

Isn't this how _most_ people get good at things... by doing them badly a bunch of times, and gradually improving?

</comment><comment><USER61> Such a weird article, more of a waste of words than any podcast I've listened to in a long time.

The mainstream journalists/media have raced to the bottom in a clickbait orgy. Podcasts are one of the only areas where you still have deep in depth coverage of areas the mainstream has too short of an attention for.

Also funny he thinks it's bad for music. I listen to a lot of music podcasts. Mainstream/Pop music is in a horrible place, a lot of these podcasts help keep real musicianship alive. Lots and lots of knowledge transfer.

I play guitar, to use the guitar example if a famous guitarist goes on a podcast you're going to hear a very very different level of content compared to if the Washington Post interviews the guitarist. The podcast guy probably plays guitar and the audience is guitarists so the interviewer can ask intelligent questions and the musician doesn't have to dumb down everything they say to the point it all comes off as magic.

This article is the same kind of thing as someone lamenting we should go back to a 1950s music system where there are a few big companies that are able to play gatekeeper on everything.. so we end up with everyone stuck listening to the same stuff.

</comment><comment><USER62> I love listening to goofy podcasts that are just a few friends shooting the shit. Middling-to-low production value is part of the charm. One of my recent favorites is The Greatest Generation [0], which is about Star Trek, mostly.

[https://art19.com/shows/the-greatest-generation](https://art19.com/shows/the- greatest-generation)

<comment><USER63> It's not technically a podcast, but I enjoy listening to James Rolfe and friends (The Angry video Game Nerd) discuss old movies on his youtube channel (cinemassacre)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> After skimming through the comments, I refuse to click this link as a matter of principle.

<comment><USER37> As soon as I noticed that this particular post had more comments than upvotes I couldn't wait to jump in and read both the article and the comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> [https://outline.com/KjkgBC](https://outline.com/KjkgBC)

</comment><comment><USER66> With so many wonderful, unread books beckoning, why waste your time reading rags from WP, NYT, etc.?

</comment><comment><USER67> Strange article, at least for me. A little of what the author says resonates with me but most is a hard 'no'.

Killing music? Well maybe some people listen to too much music. The author likes highly polished written material (so do I; I have written several books and I am a voracious reader - I am just finishing the very good 66 hour audio book Jerusalem) but there is also a nice human connection hearing someone's voice and spontaneous interactive dialog.

I listen to the podcast Exponential View (and sometime the MIT AGI class interviews by Lex Firdman) while I am at the gym. I am not a huge fan of going to the gym but keeping up with new tech and the social changes caused by tech while I work out makes the experience better.

</comment><comment><USER68> The author needs to find better podcasts. He acknowledges this, but still remains dismissive of podcasts. The Knowledge Project and Exponent replaced every self-help babbler and tech blogger for me. My Brother, My Brother and Me and The Dollop are better entertainment than most of the best TV shows and movies.

It's interesting that this is the opposite of one of the more convincing podcast takes I've seen. I forget who it was, but they argued that podcasts and video were a return to the visual and verbal storytelling and information sharing that pervaded before the relatively limited--in some ways--written word took over. That might have been an Exponent episode...

<comment><USER69> Just a heads up that The Dollop unapologetically built their huge, lucrative following via naked plagiarism.

I have my own history podcast (with a much smaller audience than The Dollop), and a few years back I discovered that they were re-reading lengthy segments of my original podcast scripts word-for-word on their podcast without permission or attribution. When I called them out they claimed this is "Fair Use", and that non-fiction cannot be copyrighted. It really knocked the wind out of my sails, and it bothers me to this day, so I can't see them recommended like this without adding this important asterisk.

My open letter to them from 2015, with audio evidence: [https://www.damninteresting.com/a-special-note-to-the- writer...](https://www.damninteresting.com/a-special-note-to-the-writers-at- the-dollop/)

Sorry for the bummer. MBMBaM is great though.

<comment><USER68> It looks like their defense is that they make it clear they're reading what someone else wrote and making jokes. That _wasn 't_ clear, but I do understand where they're coming from. I listen for the jokes, not the history. They should be more upfront about their sources.

It's similar to MBMBaM reading Yahoo Answers questions word for word while being silly about it. Except they _do_ make the source clear. I do agree with them that it fits under fair use since it usually protects parody and commentary. They list all their sources now, so it's moot.

I was much more moved by hearing that Lore basically reads off wikis. They don't add anything. That's why I switched to Myths and Legends.

<comment><USER69> Well, if they had been reading one single article they found online, and just reading it aloud and making jokes about it, I might accept (though still be annoyed by) the "oops we forgot to attribute" defense. But if you look at what The Dollop _actually_ did, they took 5-6 paragraphs from one article, 7-8 paragraphs from another article, a few solitary paragraphs from others, and just glued it all together and never said a word about where the text came from. Cribbing segments from various places like that, and "forgetting" to attribute, that is classic, flagrant plagiarism.

Like you say, MBMBaM credits their source. They're also using 1-2 sentences from a public forum, not a dozen paragraphs from a competing podcast.

<comment><USER68> I don't now what The Dollop was like four years ago when this happened. What I do know is they list all their sources now, and I can't find any issue with the ratio of quoted material to original.

You obviously put a lot of work into your project. It's not to my taste, but there's a place for a plain telling of history. It's unfortunate The Dollop's early missteps still affect you all these years later. I know what it's like to get hung up on something for long enough that everyone else thinks you should have moved on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Someone call the wambulance.

The entertainment police are out in full swing telling people they are being entertained "wrong."

Look, I really don't care for listening to music, it's just not entertaining to me. I can't explain the reasons why, just not my thing, music just doesn't tickle my fancy so I never listen to it. I also really don't care for live theater or art museums. However, I don't go writing wordy and overwrought op- eds or blog posts saying how I'm 'against' those things, because I different people understand people enjoy different things than me.

I read the first several paragraphs and skimmed the rest because its truly insufferable.

</comment><comment> village-idiot .... so don't listen to them? I don't understand why someone's personal media preferences require an editorial.

I'm pretty meh on TV, but you don't see me writing a few hundred words on it because I understand that nobody gives a shit about my media preferences.

<comment><USER71> Of course a jean-wearing, podcast-listening, village-idiot wouldn't understand the Washington Post's high-brow takes.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/04...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html)

<comment><USER72> This is such a wonderful piece. Thank you for sharing.

<comment><USER71> The best part is that 1/3 of it is simply quotes from a WSJ piece published a few weeks prior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> You can learn a lot from podcasts and they have the power to turn a commute into productive time.

An odd thing to be against (although indeed, it's hard to listen to ones with poor audio quality).

Maybe the author just needs to discover some like Hardcore History...

</comment><comment><USER74> This is a pop music critic, of all things. The quality of pop music from a culture and complexity standpoint has fallen through the floorboards like a chunk of radioactive debris and is digging to depths unknown.

People are listening to podcasts because they want to be entertained and informed. You aren't gonna get that by listening to the mumble rapper from Degrassi High. If pop music suffers from podcasts, then maybe podcasts aren't the problem... and if the best you can do is complain about the timbre in someone's voice or the quality of the studio, then you've lost the argument.

</comment><comment><USER75> This may be the dumbest thing to ever make it to the front page. What a pointless thing to complain about. Podcasts are not for everyone, but to be "against" them is so dumb I dont even know where to start.

</comment><comment><USER76> Podcasts vs music seems a matter of personal preferences.

I skimmed through this post in a few minutes. It would have been a much longer time if it were a podcast. I don't have that much time to invest on a single subject so I'm not into podcasts. I rarely watch technical videos for the same reason. I definitely prefer text: same content at my own pace.

However I don't commute anymore. When I did I listened to news and random music if driving or I read a book if I was on a subway train (much better than driving.) I could have listened to podcasts or audio books back then.

</comment><comment><USER77> old man yells at cloud

<comment><USER78> wait until he comes across an "i hate podcasts" podcast and then he'll be hooked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> > With all of the world's unheard songs beckoning us with their endless > mystery, why would anyone choose to waste their precious listening hours on > a podcast?

Maybe some people don't like music as much.

</comment><comment><USER80> I'm always surprised at the popularity of podcasts vs audiobooks. Seems podcasts have made the jump to "gen pop" but audiobooks, despite the increasing popularity of audible, still tend to be niche.

I'm biased because I'm an audiobook hound, but I'd take an audiobook over a podcast any day. Far superior production quality, better content, a beginning, middle and an end, professional narrators, researched analysis and not just random people spouting off opinions.

<comment><USER74> It's easier to write a story than it is to write a book. But most topics aren't book worthy, so stories it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Pop music critic comes out against podcasts, in part because they aren't well produced.

Yet, what's really killing pop music, at least in part, is that so much of it, to my ears, is now an exercise in production techniques than it is about the music being produced. Ultimately, that "sounding right" is also simply an extension of fashion statement. True, that fashion in pop music has been more important than the actual music for a long time, but over the decades the music part of this has been diminishing in importance.

And frankly, it's pretty boring stuff out there these days mostly because of that emphasis on production values over the content. Everything is so homogeneous; yeah, old guy talking here, but I'm not exactly locked into a generation or genre in what I do choose to listen to, either...

I'm not a big podcast fan, either, though there are a couple I listen to if I have drive time. Still, much of that world, and some YouTube efforts, just seem so much more genuine to me.

Anyway, I think a pop music critic should likely be thinking about what's wrong with pop music that makes podcasts appealing by comparison rather than having sour grapes about a format that clearly is comparatively more desirable, regardless of what faults it may or may not have.

</comment><comment><USER82> He missed a trick to christen "Big Pod". Most music is garbage anyways.

More importantly, pods are not about "sound". They're about "social".

Podcasts are rent-a-friends.

</comment><comment><USER83> I hate podcasts too. Or to put it more lightly, at the very least they are completely alien to me.

In my opinion the elephant in the room when talking about informational podcasts or video is... text.

As a medium, text is just _so much more efficient_ (at least for me) that I can't begin to imagine why one would want to listen to a piece of content instead of reading it. I scan-read 20 articles faster than I could hear (or watch) a single one of them if they were presented in audio or video. And doing so I still have my ears available (for coworkers at work, for example).

Video can be interesting in a few specific cases : music production is a hobby of mine, and video can be interesting (but not always) as you can simultaneously watch somebody doing something while hearing how it affects the sound.

But most podcasts (and youtube videos) do not exploit the unique properties of audio or video enough to justify the tremendous requirements they ask on my attention span.

In my opinion audio and video emphasize entertainment over information, but most of them are not that entertaining (compared to an actual entertainment media), and not that much informational (compared to a text article).

I think newspapers made a tremendous mistake with the pivot to video and the pivot to podcasts. Vive le texte !

<comment><USER84> Can you read 20 articles while driving a car or walking to the store or cleaning your house? I find they're a great way to double-up with activities where I'd otherwise be bored out of my mind, and I can take the opportunity to learn about something, or at the very least not be bored.

TV might be more entertaining, but I've never heard anyone argue "Why would you sit down and watch the new Game of Thrones episode, you should listen to a podcast instead!" Being an audio-only medium makes them a lot more amenable to consuming while you do something else. They're only competing with music and audiobooks in that respect.

It's not like I get home from work and think "You know what I want to do this evening? Sit in a chair and listen to podcasts for an hour."

<comment><USER83> I do these kind of activities, but mostly divided in 5 to 15mn chunks. (Notably, my commute to work is a mere 10mn walk and I have a toddler child at home requiring frequent attention)

I would have trouble dividing a 40mn podcast into five listens divided over 3 days.

For those kind of double-up, I find listening music vastly more enjoyable, but that's just my opinion. Lately I actually prefer not doubling-up and just listen to the silence and letting my mind wander. It feels good too !

<comment><USER84> There's short form podcasts that work in 10-20 minute segments too, _The Memory Palace_ is one that I'm subscribed to.

But I totally agree it's nice to not multitask and just let your mind wander sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I used to be quite fond of many podcasts, but my love has been recently waning, mostly owing to two obnoxious trends: 1) Re-runs, which make no sense in the podcast realm; and 2) podcasts airing episodes from other shows on the same podcast network. Both practices are increasingly common, and they rapidly fill my feed with content I don't care to listen to. It's hard to housekeep since I mostly listen while driving.

<comment><USER7> >podcasts airing episodes from other shows on the same podcast network

I get your point but it's also allowed me to discover podcasts I probably wouldn't have otherwise learned about. And my general experience is that, if the cross-post is on a favorite podcast, it's probably worth at least a trial run.

I mostly pre-curate a playlist before getting in the car. There are very few podcasts where I listen to all or even most episodes. I do wish there was a better voice interface of some sort so that I could better interact while driving.

<comment><USER69> Yeah, I understand their intention, but personally I am seldom intrigued by the alternate offering. Consequently, to my ears, each such crossover becomes a very long advertisement, and these crossovers have been popping up a lot as podcast networks continue to grow. If the preview were in the form of a short excerpt, enough to give me a sense of the other show's vibe, I would call that a livable compromise, but I can't abide having entire episodes foisted on me.

But maybe I am an outlier, and if so, I will just be unhappy about it all by myself.

<comment><USER7> Fair enough. It's certainly more about mutual back scratching than it is audience service.

I'm probably less affected because I pretty much choose individual episodes to watch anyway rather than just listen to everything on a given podcast. I don't commute so I don't spend a huge amount of time in my car and therefore don't listen to a huge number of podcasts overall. (I rarely listen at home.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> I just read someone saying that he _doesn 't like_ podcasts but using the word _" against"_ to shock friends and attract clicks.

</comment><comment><USER86> Abbreviated: "I hate this medium because of my strawman reasons."

</comment><comment><USER87> I know a few podcasters and one thing they seem not well prepared for is the extreme difficulty of voice recording and processing. In particular sibilance control and dynamics are just really difficult. Having a good vocal sound takes a lot of experience. I can't really blame them, as quality of content is probably most important.

</comment><comment><USER88> TFA arguments seem ... ill informed. "Not a replacement for music?" Uh, ok. Entertainment is more important than information? sure bro....

I don't care for podcasts either.

(1) Most are too infomation-lite and too long. I can read far far far faster than someone can speak.

(2) Most adopt sort of a morning-show breezy chat back and forth, which drags the information content down.

I listen to one-two podcasts regularly, depending on mood. One is a 10-12 minute religious homily by a scholar; the other is a hour-long run by a criminal justice lawyer commenting on legal issues regarding the police and society. Both are information sources I can't get elsewhere easily.

I think of podcasts as talk radio.

FWIW, historically there were radio dramas - works of fiction created for radio. I am sure there are similar podcasts which are tons of fun for people.

</comment><comment><USER89> This is by far the most immature accusation of all accusations i have heard from people on podcasts. He lost me when he said "Most podcasts are conversations for people to eavesdrop on — recorded talk that precludes real- life talk about real life with zombie talk about podcasts". This is like saying "Chemistry is just mixing chemicals on conical flasks and lighting up bunsen burners". This is oversimplyfying the existence of podcasts. What about social media ? Does it not preclude from real life connectivity. What about videos ? does it not preclude from real life experience ? What about any form of art ? Does it not preclude us from observing the art of nature. You can basically say this argument to anything. Its an empty argument.

</comment><comment><USER90> This guy seems to have one of these "bullshit jobs" that David Graeber wrote about.

</comment><comment><USER91> I don't understand the headline. the word "or" implies the object of podcasts is to kill music? I don't think those are the only options.

I listen to two or three podcasts on a regular basis that admittedly don't have top-notch production values, but also don't have "dinky interstitial stock music" or whatever vague "tone" this guy is admonishing. if he's only listening to badly-produced podcasts that use gimmicks that annoy him, that's basically a personal problem in my opinion. he should try listening to something that isn't just trying to sound like the radio.

</comment><comment><USER92> >I consider them an enemy of music

Presumably something like 'Lost in The Stacks' [http://lostinthestacks.libsyn.com/](http://lostinthestacks.libsyn.com/) with it's amazingly revolutionary mix of, get this, some talking and then some music, would blow his tiny little mind. Current episode, 'As Your Attorney I Advise You Again to Drive at Top Speed' \- [http://traffic.libsyn.com/lostinthestacks/LITS_Episode_420.m...](http://traffic.libsyn.com/lostinthestacks/LITS_Episode_420.mp3)

</comment><comment><USER93> The writer is against podcasts, I wonder why...

</comment><comment><USER94> Weird article.

I personally can't listen to podcasts for another reason though: I find them so frustratingly slow. E.g. when I read the New Yorker, I can read 5x faster, and more importantly skip over sections I'm less interested in. (So even listening at 2x speed still doesn't fix it, and you just can't "scan" a podcast the way your eyes can scan a page.)

When I listen to a podcast, I feel so _stuck_ at the pace of the spoken word.

A big part of it is also probably that I commute by subway so it's easy to read... maybe if I commuted by car I'd appreciate that a slow podcast is better than nothing at all.

<comment><USER95> Do you have this problem with speaking to people in real life too? Podcasts aren't meant to be an information dump, it's about the interactions between the hosts.

<comment><USER94> Huh. I mean, all the podcasts my friends recommend me always seem to be information-dump type ones, whether on politics or design or whatever. Kind of like audio New Yorker articles or mini-documentaries. I listed to the first few hours of Serial and it sure felt like a documentary to me too -- I didn't notice any interaction between the hosts. So I'd just prefer to read.

But to answer your question, no. But maybe that's the difference -- I'd rather "interact" with my friends directly where it's a 2-way street, that just listen to hosts interact with each other. But I guess if I were feeling lonely/bored that could make a lot more sense to put on a podcast, if I couldn't put on a TV show (e.g. because driving)...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> I'm really confused by the author's arguments

> With all of the world's unheard songs beckoning us with their endless > mystery, why would anyone choose to waste their precious listening hours on > a podcast?

Why is he trying to compare music to podcasts? Because they're auditory? By that same token, it could be argued why anyone would choose to waste their precious listening hours on music with all of the world's unheard audio books beckoning us with their endless mystery and wells of knowledge and information.

</comment><comment><USER97> I'm not so knee-jerk negative about the take industrial complex but boy, this seems like they needed some filler. I dislike the civilizing influence of the "well-produced" podcasts like stuff from NPR. It's not that they're bad (necessarily, but some of them are polished bullshit) it's that they're NOT weird and kind of bad.

EDIT: Ironically, the ones he holds up as standards (S-Town, Pod Save America) are the ones I generally detest.

</comment><comment><USER98> As someone this resonates with and after reading some of the comments...

I don't think he means they literally have poor sound quality because of a bad microphone. I think he means they sound sterile and without life, they are somehow lifeless. That the majority of Podcasts sound the same, the same monotone narrator, the same perfectly pitched voices delivering lines, etc... I dunno how to describe it but it's why I don't listen to podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER99> What are some good podcasts to listen to? I listen to StarTalk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and loved the (short, just 12 episodes) End Of The World with Josh Clark.

<comment><USER100> IMO the best podcasts are organic and conversational between interesting hosts, not "produced" segment shows like many of the big names. Here's a suggestion:

Omnibus! With Ken Jennings and John Roderick

[https://www.omnibusproject.com/](https://www.omnibusproject.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> Author seems very pretencious. Suggesting that podcasts are waste of time based on handful of examples and then suggesting that (to paraphrase): "there are countless songs you could listen to" as if most music wasn't complete waste of time.

Then he goes for the sound quality and voices which just seems "hipstery" to me considering the few podcasts that I actively listen to have no hisses or cracks.

Over all completely pointless fluff piece

</comment><comment><USER102> I mostly agree with the author. Maybe not on the specifics, but I've yet to find a podcast that I don't mind listening to. I've enjoyed a little bit of MBMBaM and Ear Biscuits, but they're so long! After a certain amount of time, I just zone out and I can't listen anymore. It just becomes noise.

But just wait until the author learns about AM radio! People apparently actually listen to it.

</comment><comment><USER103> I just discovered The Mountain Goats via the weather segment of the latest Welcome to Night Vale so it is possible to discover music via podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER12> The Podcast v. Music angle is particularly weird given how many podcasts are about music. As someone whose not particularly plugged in to any music scene and mostly unaware of what's popular, podcasts are one of the top ways I discover any new music to begin with. If I was purely listening to music, it would just be all of the music I already know and have.

</comment><comment><USER104> Local hipster hates something popular, more at 11.

</comment><comment><USER105> Like so much other crap on the web it owes its existence to the fact that dilettants are inflicting their fumblings on a global audience. Either you ignore the whole bunch or you have to invest energy into filtering the good from the bad. Either way, whining that the new forms of entertainment aren't like the old ones won't achieve anything.

</comment><comment><USER106> > With all of the world's unheard songs beckoning us with their endless > mystery, why would anyone choose to waste their precious listening hours on > a podcast?

A better question is why would anyone listen to podcasts when there are millions of audiobooks out there? Why spend any listening time on endless rambling and ads, when I could learn something worthwhile?

<comment><USER107> I'd rather read books with my eyes. I find it irrationally enraging to be read to when I can read a book myself.

<comment><USER106> I used to feel the same way, but I ended up adapting to the new medium. Reading is great, but sometimes listening is more convenient (commuting for example)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> I disagree that most podcasts sound bad. Even outside of the NPR/Gimlet style professional podcasts, most of the ones I listen to like ATP and Daring Fireball take their editing seriously. They have all of the speakers record their own side, and they have a backup recording of the audio conversation.

Then they align the two recordings to prevent cross talk.

</comment><comment><USER109> I don't get it. This guy can feel free to not listen to podcasts. It's not killing music by any stretch of the imagination. I still find plenty of bars and restaurants that annoy me with having a local band play that I don't really want to listen to. There really is nothing forcing you to identify and listen to podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER110> Do the popular podcast styles eventually feel like a transform that muddles the truth of the experiences? I could see how it could cause some anxiety when actual experience isn't condensed into truthy bits. I think that's something I'd see more in writing, but haven't personally expected from podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER111> I pressed paused on podcasts because for every great one (first season of Serial) there were dozens of lousy ones.

Even the highly regarded podcasts are often surprisingly ineloquent. Take Maron's. Great guests, but I almost feel myself getting dumber listening to him fumble and pause.

</comment><comment><USER112> Calling podcasts Objectively Bad is very silly, but it's weird how people talk about them as though they're this original innovation of the 21st century (the most exciting and significant one, even!) when they are literally just pre- recorded radio shows.

</comment><comment><USER113> They're also another avenue for those who want to feel the comfort of having a social experience without having to put forth any effort.

The amateur aspect of them helps a listener feel as if it's an inclusive conversation they could be a part of.

</comment><comment><USER114> What's this called? When an article criticizes something in order to promote it?

<comment><USER115> Streisand effect is one of the variations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> Chris Richards go on CumTown.

</comment><comment> yoz-y I'd like some way of tracking authors over various media with a browser extension and then be able to 'ban' them. Reading drivel like this is the actual waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER14> This article was a far bigger waste of time than any podcast.

</comment><comment><USER117> jason scott was recently talking in his podcast about this sort of thing: [https://textfiles.libsyn.com/the-podcasting- episode](https://textfiles.libsyn.com/the-podcasting-episode)

To be honest, as someone who listens to podcasts for 14+ years now, I always found it completely hilarious when the dead tree media talks about podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER118> I wish the avg podcast was 10-15m in length so I could listen I my commute, not an hour, which seems to be the accepted norm.

<comment><USER7> Not 10-15m but quite a few are sub 30 minutes, e.g. 99 Percent Invisible to give one example I listen to. Personally, I find 20 to 30 minutes about ideal a lot of the time. Too much shorter and I have to queue multiple podcasts together and too much longer is just a bit long, especially if it's not a produced podcast with multiple segments. An hour is usually too much for a single 1:1 interview IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> Keep in mind the author is a pop music critic, so of course he's against anything that could impact his income.

</comment><comment><USER120> Ironic that the Washington post are complaining about alternative media! Its almost like they have revenue issues!

</comment><comment><USER121> What motive could a Washington Post journalist possibly have for trashing podcasts?

^_^

</comment><comment><USER122> The author's tears are delicious. You reap what you sow.

</comment><comment><USER123> Alternative title: I've only listened to bad podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER124> That was a funny rant

</comment><comment><USER125> What a whole lot of nothing

</comment><comment><USER126> I'm against paywalled articles, so let's call it even

</comment><comment><USER127> TL;DR: get off this guy's lawn

</comment><comment><USER128> I'm Against Paywalls.

</comment><comment><USER129> lol..wtf</comment>