[…] being able to say, “wherever you get your podcasts” is a radical statement. Because what it represents is the triumph of exactly the kind of technology that’s supposed to be impossible: open, empowering tech that’s not owned by any one company, that can’t be controlled by any one company, and that allows people to have ownership over their work and their relationship with their audience.
What podcasting holds in the promise of its open format is the proof that an open web can still thrive and be relevant, that it can inspire new systems that are similarly open to take root and grow.
Who is suggesting that such technology is impossible? The internet is literally exactly this, based on an open standard (Internet Protocol) which is not controlled by any proprietary group.
IP wasn’t the first computer networking standard to be developed, but its open nature made it accessible to any interested manufacturers and that made it the most successful standard.
Anyone suggesting that this “kind of technology” is “supposed to be impossible” is either ignorant or stupid, or both.
If IP was developed today, you’d be paying IBM or a similar corp royalties for every network adapter manufactured. Thats whats supposed to be impossible in today’s late-stage hyper-capitalism web.
I’m also not sure I can agree with that it’s “a radical statement”. It is… not? Unless I misunderstand what others mean with
radicalin this context, but linguistically it should the form free of pre- and suffixes and qualifiers, no?So in this context, “wherever you get your podcasts” is… not very radical. That’d be not actually stating anything in regards to your podcasting platform, as it is in itself a qualifier for something else in that sentence, and hence removed.
It’s also not radical in the political sense of course, but I kinda figured that’s not what is being alluded to here anyways as it’d inherently not make any sense.
The IP helped the Internet to establish. But once established we see trends to try to limit the very technology into propriety. Think of the Facebook internet access schemes that tried to make everything go through facebook. Think of the attempts to make priviledged and throttled websites based on what the ISP likes…
When Podcasts were new, the open standard was embraced, but now we see attempts to make them exclusive too. Just that they didn’t prevail yet.
You’re right that they’ve tried to do this and it’s ugly. But they’ve only been able to do it in places where they didn’t have to compete with an existing service, so I would argue that it’s successful only in a vacuum.
There are a lot of very successful businesses based around open source software. Open models are perfectly functional in the present. Their potential for success isn’t some relic of past idealism.
I think what the author meant was that it’s impossible in the capitalist marketplace.
Joe Rogan is probably a good anti-example. His podcast (as I understand it anyway) is only available on Spotify. But Conan O’Brien, the Office Ladies, and even The West Wing Weekly (which hasn’t been producing in years) is still available, for free, on any podcast platform.
Nonsense, the marketplace was also capitalist when the internet protocol was developed in 1974. It wasn’t that long ago.
Also, I’ll point out that open source software is very successful today and there are a lot of businesses based around open systems. Linux is the most widely used OS, particularly for embedded devices. Apache is the most widely used web server. You’re using an open source platform right now. You probably interact with open source systems every day, you’re surrounded by them, and they were developed in and thrive in the ‘capitalist marketplace’.
Every business that could stand to make a buck from it being that way. But the author obviously meant in the current economic model we live under.
The internet isn’t exactly ancient technology. Do you think the ‘current economic model’ is significantly different from the 1970s? (and can you back up that conclusion?)
I don’t follow what you’re saying. The economic model we’re in has been around for hundreds, arguably thousands of years in most ways. What about it?
The author was assuming people would know that “impossible” doesn’t always need to be literal. Things are more often impossible because of established norms. That’s all.
The norms we are discussing here is that under capitalism, the norm tends to be trending away from free and open systems. Because where there is a buck to be made, there’s usually someone doing everything they can to make that buck and prevent the openness that would render them useless.
And open source came into being inside of that model, and has grown and thrived since. So obviously, it’s not impossible.
Right, this isn’t true. While certainly there are some businesses that try to restrict it, open systems grow and spread anyway. Open source is bigger and stronger than ever today. Open source software is so widespread that it’s a security concern for governments (look at the log4j fiasco). You interact with open platforms every day, even if you don’t see their names in commercials or on billboards (many of them don’t have to advertise).
I think you’re just being argumentative honestly. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said really, I just take issue with the intentional reading of “possible” as “technically possible”.
Yeah OSS and a lot of open systems are huge and great. They will continue to grow. But as we both know, business will continue to be intentionally shitty. Exhibit A: world’s first trillion dollar company, Apple, thrives mostly due to the proprietary ecosystem they’ve put in place. It’s a “winning” strategy, as much as I loathe it.
We’re not disagreeing on anything but wording here.
OK, but I’m not arguing for the sake of argument. What I take issue with is the overly negative point of view that isn’t justified by the reality of the current technology market. It’s limited, depressive and ultimately self-destructive.
Perspective matters. Money isn’t the only measure of success. Internet infrastructure is basically Linux, nginx and Apache - seriously, apart from user endpoints it’s pretty much all open source - and the most common endpoint OS is Android so also open source. The idea that open systems aren’t as successful as proprietary ones doesn’t reflect reality, it’s a projection of a limited point of view onto reality (it only seems true if large portions of the current technology market are ignored).
I get where you are coming from now. Thanks for elaborating.
I can see where you’d get that it’s an overly negative point of view, but I’ll be damned if companies like Apple don’t give me so many reasons to think that way :(