By John Gruber
Listen Notes: Search any topic or person from 123,000,000+ podcast episodes.
Whenever I write about rip-offs, there’s inevitably some amount of whataboutism in the arguments from the ripper-offer or their defenders. So it was with last week’s brouhaha over blatant Wordle rip-offs appearing in the App Store, and Zach Shakked’s shameless “Wordle - The App” in particular.
Count me firmly in the “Everything Is a Remix” camp.1 George Lucas mashed up Flash Gordon with Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress, built upon VFX innovations from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and created something utterly original in Star Wars. Quentin Tarantino obviously loved and drew inspiration from Ringo Lam’s City on Fire,2 but Reservoir Dogs was anything but a rip-off. “Good artists borrow, great artists steal” — or something like that.
Some good rules of thumb, if you’re weighing whether a derivative new work crosses the threshold into ripping off the original: If the derivative steals the original’s title or name, that’s a rip-off. If the derivative is designed to confuse people into thinking it is the original — as Shakked’s Wordle clone clearly was — that’s a rip-off. If the derivative is indistinguishable from the original or brings nothing new to the table, it’s probably a rip-off.
One game that’s come up repeatedly in discussions about Wordle’s originality is Lingo, a TV game show that first ran in the U.S. in 1987,3 and versions of which remain on the air in a few countries, including the U.K. Current U.K. Lingo host Adil Ray posted this snippy tweet on January 5 — before the Wordle App Store kerfuffle:
Hey peeps, if you’re going to play a game that looks like ours, works like ours, smells like ours and basically is OURS it’s only right you give us a plug. Lingo back today @3pm @itv #lingo #Wordle 😍🤪
When last week’s controversy erupted, I watched some footage of Lingo, and rolled my eyes at the “Wordle is just a rip-off of Lingo” allegations. Yes, both games are about guessing five-letter words. But a game show where you compete against other contestants and against a clock “smells” quite different from Wordle’s solo gameplay and leisurely “take as much time as you want” pace.
Turns out Lingo isn’t just a TV game show, though. It’s an officially-licensed video game — in both the App Store and Play Store. David Barnard was the first person I saw who pointed to the official Lingo game, tweeting thus:
The OG Wordle (ahem, Lingo) app is absolutely abysmal. Same game mechanics, but with punitive free-to-play BS.
That description is generous. Lingo might not be the worst game on the App Store, but it’s the worst and most oppressively dystopic game I’ve ever played. The mechanics aren’t quite the same as Wordle either: the Lingo game is timed, like the TV show, and the keyboard, bizarrely, doesn’t tell you which letters you’ve already tried. But the official Lingo game is so much worse than that. There are 30-second unskippable video ads between levels, coins and gems to collect and of course purchase with real money,4 and, inexplicably, a mandatory bingo game between each level of the word game. Corny graphics, terrible music, and even the “how to play” onboarding is frustrating. And of course they admit to a whole slew of data tracking in their App Store metadata and ask to be permitted to track you, and if you grant Lingo permission to send you notifications they send a few per day every day reminding you to play more Lingo.
Yes, both games involve guessing five-letter words, but Josh Wardle’s Wordle is a wonderfully simple, totally free game designed only to bring people a bit of serene enjoyment for a few minutes per day. The official Lingo app is an ugly cacophonous confusing jumble of concepts intended to hook players on in-app purchases, and whose only saving grace is that it’s no fun at all to actually play and thus, although not for lack of trying, not the least bit addictive in practice.
There’s a reason you probably never heard of the official Lingo app.
A few other related games:
Words With Friends is a very popular Scrabble-like game, but it is not a Scrabble rip-off. There’s only one “Scrabble” in the App Store and it’s licensed from Hasbro. (“Scrubble” might be crossing the rip-off line, though.)
Andy Baio mentioned Jotto, a two-player paper-and-pencil secret word game from the 1950s.
Word Game Hero is an iOS game for iPhone and iPad by Jake Nelson. It’s a 4-to-7-letter-word guessing game, free to play with ads after a five-day trial period, and $3 for a one-time unlock for ad-free unlimited play. It’s well-made, and very iOS-y, including support for SharePlay to play with friends over FaceTime. It’s also clearly inspired by Wordle, as Nelson graciously acknowledges in the Settings screen, with links to both Wordle and Lingo. I’d say the gameplay is within shouting distance of a Wordle rip-off — the color choices and plain flat graphics are straight from Wordle, and the share-your-results text (example) is just like Wordle’s but with differently shaped emoji (which different shapes, admittedly, are more accessible) — but to my eyes it doesn’t cross the rip-off line, and more importantly, doesn’t even vaguely attempt to pass itself off as “Wordle”. It’s also doing something Wordle doesn’t want to do: let you play as many levels as you’d like. I’d say it is to Wordle as Words With Friends is to Scrabble.
Lastly, Saltong, a web-based game by Carl de Guia that bills itself right at the top as “A Filipino Clone of Wordle”, with 4- and 7-letter-word variants. Doesn’t pass itself off as Wordle, gives prominent and full credit to the original Wordle, and uses words from an entirely different language. Not a rip-off. ★
I watched City on Fire decades ago on VHS (or maybe DVD?), and thinking about it now made me consider a re-watch. Alas, it seems unavailable to buy or stream online in the U.S. It’s bananas that it was easier to find “old” movies on physical media at my beloved local video store 20 years ago than it is today on streaming platforms and online stores. Netflix’s old model of renting discs sent through the mail offered way more movies than all streaming services combined do today. Don’t get me started on the general unavailability of James Cameron’s True Lies or The Abyss. ↩︎︎
Lingo’s age rating is “4+”. It strikes me as wrong that any game with in-app purchases should be rated for young children. Real-world casinos don’t have slot machines for children; the App Store shouldn’t either. ↩︎︎
The Wall Street Journal ran a doozy of a story by Tim Higgins last weekend: “Why Apple’s iMessage Is Winning: Teens Dread the Green Text Bubble” (News+ link). Few Americans don’t have U.S.-centric blind spots — I’m certainly guilty of that on numerous fronts — but this take is so U.S.-centric it beggars belief. The article’s subhead says it all:
The iPhone maker cultivated iMessage as a must-have texting tool for teens. Android users trigger a just-a-little-less-cool green bubble: “Ew, that’s gross.”
The article’s foundation is a handful of personal anecdotes, starting with the lede:
Soon after 19-year-old Adele Lowitz gave up her Apple iPhone 11 for an experimental go with an Android smartphone, a friend in her long-running texting group chimed in: “Who’s green?”
The reference to the color of group text messages — Android users turn Apple Inc.’s iMessage into green bubbles instead of blue — highlighted one of the challenges of her experiment. No longer did her group chats work seamlessly with other peers, almost all of whom used iPhones. FaceTime calls became more complicated and the University of Michigan sophomore’s phone didn’t show up in an app she used to find friends.
100 words in and already so much to correct. How this ran in the WSJ’s Technology section is beyond explanation. Messages is Apple’s messaging app for iOS and Mac; iMessage is Apple’s proprietary messaging platform. Messages doesn’t render texts from Android green, per se — it renders all SMS messages as green. Messages has no idea what type of device sent an SMS, it just knows it’s an SMS message. An SMS sent from an iPhone user will be green, too.
Until three months ago, FaceTime was exclusive to Apple devices. Starting in October (and announced last June at WWDC), FaceTime users can create web links that Android and Windows users can use to join calls. But yes, Apple’s proprietary voice and audio call platform works more seamlessly on their own devices. Shocker.
Find My for finding iPhone-using friends doesn’t work on Android either. Again, filed under “Duh”. The whole point of Apple — the entire company — is to offer superior products and services to customers willing to pay for them. Higgins quotes from internal emails from Craig Federighi and Phil Schiller — emails made public during discovery in last year’s Epic v. Apple lawsuit — arguing against releasing a version of iMessage for Android as though it’s scandalous, rather than obviously strategic. It’s not like iMessage was at any time cross-platform and Apple dropped Android support (which, even if it had been the case, wouldn’t necessarily be nefarious in the least) — it was conceived as a proprietary platform for iPhones, iPads, and Macs.
Back to the WSJ:
That pressure to be a part of the blue text group is the product of decisions by Apple executives starting years ago that have, with little fanfare, built iMessage into one of the world’s most widely used social networks and helped to cement the iPhone’s dominance among young smartphone users in the U.S.
As Harry McCracken quipped on Twitter, iMessage was not introduced with “little fanfare” — it was a tentpole announcement from Scott Forstall at WWDC 2011.
From the beginning, Apple got creative in its protection of iMessage’s exclusivity. It didn’t ban the exchange of traditional text messages with Android users but instead branded those messages with a different color; when an Android user is part of a group chat, the iPhone users see green bubbles rather than blue. It also withheld certain features. There is no dot-dot-dot icon to demonstrate that a non-iPhone user is typing, for example, and an iMessage heart or thumbs-up annotation has long conveyed to Android users as text instead of images.
The Messages app for iOS has always rendered SMS messages as green — going back to the first version, when the app was named “Text” and its icon had “SMS” in the bubble. The color of SMS messages on iOS was green before iMessage was introduced, and remained green after. And iMessage messages should be visually distinct from SMS — they’re different in important ways, not the least of which is that iMessage is and always has been end-to-end encrypted and SMS isn’t and never will be.
There’s no dot-dot-dot indicator for SMS because the primitive SMS protocol doesn’t support it. Android users sending SMS messages to other Android users don’t get a dot-dot-dot typing indicator either, because it’s not technically possible. Message reactions — hearts, thumbs, ha-has, !!’s, and ?’s — are sent as text via SMS because they have to be. Apple’s only other option would be not to send these reactions at all.
Apple later took other steps that enhanced the popularity of its messaging service with teens. It added popular features such as animated cartoon-like faces that create mirrors of a user’s face, to compete with messaging services from social media companies. Apple’s own survey of iPhone holders made public during the Epic Games litigation found that customers were particularly fond of replacing words with emojis and screen effects such as animated balloons and confetti. Avid teen users said in interviews with The Wall Street Journal that they also liked how they could create group chats with other Apple users that add and subtract participants without having to start a new chain.
Higgins paints these features as though they’re the digital equivalent of advertising cigarettes to children with a cartoon mascot. They’re just fun features, and there’s nothing teen-specific about them. I get confetti and balloon iMessage effects from both my mother and mother-in-law, neither of whom have been — or even lived with — teenagers for a while.
There’s nothing teen-specific about iPhone users being annoyed at Android users in group chats. In fact, such complaints might be far more common among adults, because so many teenagers have iPhones they don’t encounter it as often. Last year I linked to a story from Mirin Fader’s Giannis: The Improbable Rise of an NBA MVP that claims former Milwaukee Bucks coach Jason Kidd made the entire team run because one player had an Android phone and messed up the team’s group chat. (For what it’s worth, the player in question claims the story isn’t true. It’s the fact that the story resonated that matters.) Here’s a story from October about pro golfer (and well-known oddball) Bryson DeChambeau messing up the U.S. team’s Ryder Cup group chat because he was the lone Android user.
The cultivation of iMessage is consistent with Apple’s broader strategy to tie its hardware, software and services together in a self-reinforcing world — dubbed the walled garden — that encourages people to pay the premium for its relatively expensive gadgets and remain loyal to its brand. That strategy has drawn scrutiny from critics and lawmakers as part of a larger examination of how all tech giants operate. Their core question: Do Apple and other tech companies create products that consumers simply find indispensable, or are they building near-monopolies that unfairly stifle competition?
Putting aside broader antitrust arguments and focusing solely on messaging — the point of the WSJ’s story — it’s ridiculous to argue that Apple is in any way “stifling competition”. The complete opposite is the case: via the App Store and APIs in iOS, there is a rich and vibrant global market for messaging apps on iOS. WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, Line, Signal, and others are all thriving and popular. For teenagers and college students, Discord is huge, and far more of a hangout than iMessage. Also, a little app called WeChat is somewhat popular in China. And they’re all cross-platform.
In fact, these third-party messaging platforms exemplify the gaping hole in the center of the WSJ’s premise: iMessage’s extraordinary popularity in the U.S. is a global outlier. This story created a stir on Twitter over the weekend, and a very common refrain from observers who live outside the U.S. was utter bafflement that iMessage was popular anywhere, because other messaging services are so dominant elsewhere — including with iPhone users. iMessage is obviously only popular where iPhones are popular, but iPhones are popular in countries around the world where iMessage (and SMS) are seldom used.
The U.S. is just different on this front. I like Ben Thompson’s simple theory why, which I’ll
steal paraphrase here. Pre-iMessage, the U.S. was an outlier for SMS, because U.S. carriers made SMS text messages free, or included so many SMS monthly text messages in their plans that they were effectively free. Whereas elsewhere around the world, SMS text messages always cost at least 10 cents a pop — often more — to send, which was a big motivation to find alternative messaging services. The original point of iMessage was to make a better messaging service to replace SMS for messages between iPhone users. Apple asked, “What sucks about SMS/MMS?” and made iMessage to address those shortcomings. So it makes sense that iMessage is most popular here in the U.S., where SMS was (and remains!) widely-used, and is less popular in countries where people started moving to alternative messaging platforms before iMessage even existed.
iMessage is just one proprietary Apple nicety among hundreds for iPhone users. Is it a reason to buy and stick with an iPhone? Of course. Is it the reason, or even near the top of the list, for anyone? No.
Apple and other tech giants have long worked hard to get traction with young users, hoping to build brand habits that will extend into adulthood as they battle each other for control of everything from videogames to extended reality glasses to the metaverse.
Apple has never, and I hope will never, use the word “metaverse” in an ostensibly straight-faced manner.
Globally, Alphabet Inc.’s Android operating system is the dominant player among smartphone users, with a loyal following of people who are vocal about their support. Among U.S. consumers, 40% use iPhones, but among those aged 18 to 24, more than 70% are iPhone users, according to Consumer Intelligence Research Partners’s most recent survey of consumers.
That there’s a significant difference in iPhone market share between younger and older people has been widely known ever since the iPhone hit the market. Teenagers wanted (and got) iPhones then, and they want (and get) iPhones today.
The crux of Higgins’s report for the WSJ seems to be that this age discrepancy in iPhone market is largely about the color of text messages in the Messages app, and that Apple has created this culture deliberately. What a pile of clickbait horseshit.
Teenagers’ preferences and tastes are different from adults’ across the board. They watch different movies, watch different shows (teenagers watch YouTube videos; adults watch TV), listen to different music, and wear different clothes. This has been the case for everyone alive today when they themselves were teenagers.
A much simpler nutshell explanation is that teenagers have a keener sense of cool, and care more about what’s cool, than adults. And the iPhone always has been and remains today cooler than any Android phone. I don’t think that explains the entire situation very well either — it’s quite a bit dismissive of the fact that teenagers actually use the hell out of their phones and thus are perfectly positioned to want iPhones for the entirely practical and rational reason that they’re better, not just cooler — but it sure as shit is closer to the mark than talking about green vs. blue text bubbles.
If text bubble color was all that mattered, everyone could switch to Android and their SMS messages would all be blue, because most Android phone makers, including Google, have their built-in SMS messaging apps set to render SMS messages as blue, because they’re spooked by the whole green bubbles are lame thing too. It’s silly. In an alternate universe where Apple’s Messages app rendered SMS messages as blue and iMessages as green, the whole thing would be reversed and iPhone users would be looking askance at blue bubbles in their group chats. There’s nothing wrong with green. Green means go. Green is money. Green means success. Neither Mr. Pink nor Mr. Brown would’ve complained if they’d been Mr. Green. And most notably — and I’d say inexplicably — Apple’s own app icon for Messages is green:
The truth is, SMS sucks and iMessage has features SMS never will or could. That opens the door to the whole RCS controversy, of course, but “RCS” never even appears in the WSJ’s article, which is bizarre. It probably should have been the whole thrust of the piece, if they want to argue that there’s something nefarious about iMessage being a proprietary messaging platform that excludes Android users. That was Google exec Hiroshi Lockheimer’s hamfisted take. (If anyone knows how to make a new messaging platform, it’s Google.)
Yet grabbing users so early in life could pay dividends for generations for Apple, already the world’s most valuable publicly traded company. It briefly crossed $3 trillion in market value for the first time on Jan. 3. “These teenagers will continue to become consumers in the future and hopefully continue to buy phones into their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s,” said Harsh Kumar, an analyst for Piper Sandler. The firm recently found that 87% of teens surveyed last year own iPhones.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that an analyst who’s willing to project which devices today’s teenagers are going to be using 50 years from now is not an analyst you should be quoting.
87 percent of U.S. teens using iPhones, though, that’s interesting. But if you think that number would be significantly different if Apple released a Messages app for Android, or added support for RCS to iOS, you’re nuts.
The clear implication of Higgins’s piece is that teenagers’ decided preference for iPhones is entirely superficial. I posit that it’s anything but. We can argue about the merits of iMessage vs. other top-tier messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram, feature-wise and UI-wise (iMessage “replies” are rather deficient, for example), but there’s no denying that iMessage is leaps and bounds better, more useful, more reliable, more supported on non-phone devices, and profoundly more secure and private than dumb old SMS. But Higgins presents all these differences as things Apple withholds for competitive spite, and that teens are suckers, seduced by a brand, for caring about them.
What, pray tell, should Apple do or have already done differently?
Develop and support an iMessage client for Android? I’m unsurprised that Apple has seriously considered this — and when a rumor dropped in June 2016 that Apple was going to announce iMessage for Android at WWDC that year, I thought it plausible. I’m also completely unsurprised that they ultimately decided against it. iMessage isn’t a standalone service — it’s a part of iCloud, and has hooks into features built into iOS and MacOS. iMessage is a competitive advantage — not just for iPhones, but for iPads and Macs too.
Support RCS? Maybe Apple will! But I can see why they probably won’t, and also why they have remained silent on the question of whether they have any interest in supporting it. Why support a less secure, less featureful protocol than iMessage? Why support a new protocol from phone carriers? We don’t use messaging services from our cable and fiber internet providers — why should we use a messaging service tied to our cell phone providers?
Teenagers are not mindless Apple zealots. The popularity of Nintendo’s Switch, Sony’s PlayStation, Microsoft’s Xbox, and especially gaming PCs running Windows is proof otherwise. Higgins has the whole thing backwards. People — including teenagers — don’t buy iPhones because iMessage is cool or good. People use iMessage because iPhones are cool and good. ★
As of today, Apple’s App Store is lousy with Wordle rip-offs. I mean not just the concept — there’s a long history of “guess the word” games, including a defunct game show called “Lingo” that was clearly an inspiration for Wordle — but literally the name “Wordle” and its design. As observed by Greg Karber, as I write this, the #3, #7, #14, and #15 word games in the iOS App Store1 are shameless Wordle clones stealing the name “Wordle”. (Worth noting that #16, “Wordle!”, was last updated five years ago, is an entirely different timer-based word game, and is simply coincidentally named. There’s also “Wordle - Word Puzzle”, a three-year-old entirely different $2 game that is also coincidentally named.)
Apple, apparently, is just fine with this. [Update: As of this evening, all of the following games that used “Wordle” in their name have been removed from the App Store.]
A perusal of the rogue’s gallery of Wordle rip-offs:2
00B7“middle dot” as a suffix on the app name.)
And then we get to the real gem of the bunch. “Wordle - The App”, by Zach Shakked, a free-to-download app with a 30-fucking-dollar-per-year “Pro” unlock. Shakked’s rip-off doesn’t just steal Wordle’s name, design, and mechanics, its “The App” suffix clearly was chosen to make it look like the official App Store version of Wardle’s original.3 He even squatted on “@theWordleApp” on Twitter — not a Wordle app — the Wordle app. Shakked then spent the last day on Twitter giddy with excitement, bragging about how much money his utterly shameless rip-off was making:
This is absurd. 450 trials at 1am last night, now at 950 and getting a new ones every minute. 12K downloads, rank #28 word game, and #4 result for “wordle” in the App Store. We’re going to the fucking moon.
The developer and web community soon caught on — Cabel Sasser, Rebecca Slatkin, Steven Troughton-Smith, Jason Kottke, and Andy Baio all exposed his shameless theft (with screenshots, wisely), and I simply asked him, just to be sure, whether he had Josh Wardle’s permission. Within moments, Shakked took his Twitter account (@zachshakked) private. (He left his rip-off app in the App Store, of course, so as not to interrupt its onward trajectory to the moon.)
It gets better, believe it or not. Literally moments before he realized the entire indie developer community was dunking on him and privatized his Twitter account, this tweet Shakked originally posted back in June surfaced:
I absolutely despise copycats. Shameless copying is so dumb. Take inspiration from others. Why are they doing that? Why is this a good feature for users? How can we build on top of that?
Shameless copy/pasting ideas/features will get you nowhere.
in response to one of his other apps having its IAP screen ripped off (and it was indeed blatantly ripped-off) by a rival.
Shakked was wrong about that: shamelessly ripping off Wordle has gotten him somewhere, all right. ★
While spelunking the App Store’s list of top word games, I stumbled upon Microsoft Wordament. Who knew Microsoft had a highly-ranked word game for iOS (and Android)? They’ve got a Mahjong game among their iOS apps, too. ↩︎
What about Google’s Play Store? I didn’t hunt for long, but as far as I can tell, there’s just one Wordle rip-off at the moment, and it isn’t high-ranking on the word game leaderboard: “Wordle - Daily Word Challenge”, by Digital Snacks — a free-to-download game with both ads and in-app purchases. I tried it out and deleted it after it rejected “caned” and “paned” — neither obscure — as invalid words. ↩︎︎
The actual official Wordle game — on the web — works splendidly as an app on iOS with Safari’s “Add to Home Screen” command in the share sheet. The only downside: web apps on the Home screen don’t share cookies with Safari itself, so if you have saved stats you’ll start over. ↩︎︎
Ashley Carman at The Verge, “Podcasters Are Letting Software Pick Their Ads — It’s Already Going Awry”:
The podcast industry is working up to something big; you can see it in the acquisitions. All the industry’s major players have, over the past two years, acquired companies focused on one feature: inserting ads into podcasts.
Of course, podcasting has always primarily depended on ad revenue, so this incoming era has more to do with getting podcast ads to act like the online advertising we see everywhere else. Wherever there’s a website, there can be a targeted ad, and now wherever there’s a podcast, there’s the potential of inserting a targeted ad, too. Whichever company can make that transition happen the fastest, across the most shows, and with the best data, could not only recoup all those millions of dollars in acquisition costs but make more on top of them.
Carman reports on a few cases of dynamic ads gone wrong — a podcast for kids that was served ads for “The Sex Lives of College Girls”, a science podcast that had explicitly opted out from ads for fossil fuel companies being served ads for Exxon and BP — but the whole idea is shit. Even when the “right” ads are dynamically inserted, the ads are inevitably going to be bad. We know how this story ends because we all use the web and can see with our own eyes the quality (and oppressive quantity) of “ad tech” advertising.
Old-fashioned podcast ads (baked-in host reads) have had better CPMs, stronger response rates, and higher audience trust than almost any other form of advertising for over a decade.
And large podcast companies threw that world away for … a worse outcome.
Big platforms and ad-tech companies ALWAYS sell us all on a dream.
You’ll make more money!
It’ll be easier!
It’ll be more accessible to small producers!
And it almost never pans out that way. The middlemen siphon off most of the money, and the platforms become monopolies.
Look no further than Carman’s own description of the trend: “getting podcast ads to act like the online advertising we see everywhere else”. I don’t know anyone who listens to podcasts — you know, the actual customers — who thinks that sounds like a good idea. There’s never been a form of advertising more despised than today’s online web advertising.
If I ever get around to making a regular podcast, I would never (ever!) give up the right to choose every single ad. The ads are part of the product.
“The ads are part of the product” succinctly sums up my thinking, and saves me from writing an extended rant. That’s the whole game, the entire reason not to even consider letting some biz-dev “ad tech” company insert ads dynamically into a podcast. The ads are part of the product. I’ve built the entire business model of Daring Fireball around that sentiment.
On a related note, it’s long been fascinating to me that “RSS” is widely considered a failure — a half-forgotten technology that lost its relevance when Google pulled the plug on Google Reader — yet the entire podcast universe is built on RSS. Spotify is gaining some degree of traction with their platform-locked shows like Joe Rogan’s, but the overwhelming number of popular podcasts — including subscriber-only paid shows — are delivered via open RSS feeds readable by any client software. All podcasts clients are, at their core, RSS clients — they’re just RSS clients for audio content, not the written word.
The primary reason for this bifurcation, I’m convinced, is simple: most web publishers never figured out how to monetize full-content RSS feeds, by which I mean RSS feeds with the complete articles, not just excerpts. Putting only article excerpts in an RSS feed makes no more sense than putting only audio excerpts into a podcast feed. People who subscribe to a podcast want to listen to the entire shows; people who subscribe to a website’s RSS feed want to read the entire articles. Don’t overthink it. But without a model for advertising in RSS,1 most websites — particularly big websites from established media companies — stopped publishing RSS feeds. Podcasts avoided that fate because the sponsorship model, typically with hosts reading the ads, took root across the entire field. It’s a good model for everyone — the hosts earn money, the sponsors get strong response rates, and listeners get ads that are actually relevant to them and not annoying. (According to Apple Podcasts’s analytics, only about 20 percent of listeners to my show skip the ads.)
Trying to move podcasts to web-like “industry standard advertising” is worse than violating the spirit of If it ain’t broke don’t fix it — this is breaking something that definitely works for something we know doesn’t. It’s grift on the part of the ad industry, pure and simple. ★
Here’s where I’ve got to take a self-congratulatory footnote. Long ago I had a paid membership program for Daring Fireball, and one of the perks for paying members was a full-content RSS feed. The free-of-charge RSS feed only had article excerpts. The problem was that Google Reader didn’t work with personal RSS feeds, and Google Reader was — by far — the most popular RSS reader. Rather than dig in my heels, I pulled the plug on monetizing full-content RSS feeds through paid memberships, and instead made the full-content feed free for everyone, and tried monetizing it with a weekly sponsorship, where the sponsor got to post a paid entry to the feed. That worked. It’s now 14 years later, and it still works. (I told a longer version of this story in a talk at XOXO back in 2014.) ↩︎