Comment

Comment on “Wherever you get your podcasts” is a radical statement - Anil Dash

…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…

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

TORFdot0@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
- NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  IBM tried that in the 60s and 70s with their business mainframe systems, along with HP and several other manufacturers. Before IP gained prominence every major manufacturer had its own proprietary connection system they tried to sell, and the competition in the market was just as fierce then as it is now. It didn’t work, the open model made all of the proprietary network systems obsolete.
  
  source
Carighan@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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 radical in 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.

source
tryptaminev@feddit.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
- NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Think of the Facebook internet access schemes that tried to make everything go through facebook.
  
  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.
  
  source
  - AtmaJnana@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Unpopular opinion: The open core model is underutilized.
    
    source
TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Who is suggesting that such technology is impossible?

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.

source
- NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  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?
  
  source
  - TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    The economic model we’re in has been around for hundreds, arguably thousands of years in most ways. What about it?
    
    And open source came into being inside of that model, and has grown and thrived since. So obviously, it’s not impossible.
    
    The norms we are discussing here is that under capitalism, the norm tends to be trending away from free and open systems.
    
    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).
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
- NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  I think what the author meant was that it’s impossible in the capitalist marketplace.
  
  Nonsense, the marketplace was also capitalist when the internet protocol was developed in 1974.
  
  source
- Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  JRE apparently no longer is Spotify exclusive either
  
  source