5 ms·
Same here. There's no value-add to the user for turning previously open podcasts into Spotify exclusives. I understand that Spotify and podcasters have to pay t
by the_snooze 5y ago
Same here. There's no value-add to the user for turning previously open podcasts into Spotify exclusives. I understand that Spotify and podcasters have to pay the bills, but they're not even trying to counter-balance the user-hostility with some benefits like ad-free listening or a proper podcast UI. And it's not like Spotify is desperate to have paying customers; they're one of the largest subscription streaming platforms around!
- wasmitnetzen 5y agoSpotify realized that they'll never be profitable with music, the labels have the upper hand and can just raise their share whenever Spotify increases revenue. For exclusive podcasts, they own the entire chain.
- the_snooze 5y agoIf they want to be a podcast company, that's fine. What I don't appreciate is the soft bait-and-switch. I subscribed to Spotify for the music. I enjoy podcasts too, but I have my own preferred way of listening to it (Pocket Casts). What Spotify is doing now is providing sub-par experiences in both. The home screen is cluttered by podcasts when I just want to use Spotify for music (especially infuriating on CarPlay), and the podcast UI is years behind what Pocket Casts offers. It's like they're not even trying to keep up the great service that drew in their customer base in the first place.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dubbel 5y agoDid Spotify at any point try to become a record label? I guess for the money they spent on Joe Rogan they could have signed some less controversial and still pretty popular artists. But maybe the record companies that own shares in Spotify prevent them from doing it.
- Ourgon 5y agoNo just that, if they were to launch their own label they'd be shunned by all the others. You do not get HBO content on the Disney channel after all.