5 ms·
> Apple isn't taking away self-hosted RSS podcast feeds. It's presenting a separate paid subscription experience within its Podcasts app. No "audacity" about it
by karaterobot 4y ago
> Apple isn't taking away self-hosted RSS podcast feeds. It's presenting a separate paid subscription experience within its Podcasts app. No "audacity" about it. If you don't want that as a creator, don't use it.
It sounded to me like the audacious part was that they don't make it clear that, once you sign up for this service, your users cannot get your podcast in any other way than using Apple Podcasts, and you will never be able to change that. The audacious part is this:
> They say that your podcast will be available to listeners on Apple Podcasts, but they don’t explicitly say that your podcast won’t be available to anyone else. When you upload your audio, they say it will have DRM, but they don’t make it clear what the consequences of this are. They tell you your show won’t have an RSS feed, but they don’t tell you what you’re giving up by not having one. This is predatory.
Which, I agree with the author, is a really, really wild thing to do, which few companies could think they'd get away with. You can just imagine a PM saying "ayy, they don't like it? screw 'em, we're Apple!"
- RC_ITR 4y ago>they say it will have DRM I confused what possible definition of 'Digital Rights Management' could entail 'anyone can freely rip your files.'
- cool_dude85 4y agoHow about 'nobody can freely rip my subscriber only files' but free files are free to be ripped? Seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. Even more reasonably, I might expect that I can freely rip my files regardless of DRM.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoThe original file creator doesn't have an issue with DRM anyway, since he has the original file. The whole point of DRM is to try to restrict non-creators from making copies. (An alternative that I might find acceptable is DRM that is removed after a short amount of time, but it would require laws with heavy fines on the violator companies that would "forget" to leave it up, and also not plan for cases like bankruptcy. )
- RC_ITR 4y agoTo be clear - the issue is that you can't rip them from the public facing URL, not that a logged in creator can't download their own files...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- friend_and_foe 4y agoWhat about "I can freely rip my own files"? Does the definition preclude that also?
- RC_ITR 4y agoWhere does the article mention that? The entire discussion is around a 3rd party using public-facing URLs, not logged in users.
- CharlesW 4y ago> It sounded to me like the audacious part was that they don't make it clear that, once you sign up for this service, your users cannot get your podcast in any other way than using Apple Podcasts… You definitely can. What the author said was, "What I learned is that Apple does not produce an RSS feed for podcasts that they host". But this is misplaced outrage on the author's part, since Apple has never produced RSS feeds.
- bastawhiz 4y agoEvery other podcast hosting service in existence provides RSS feeds. But unless you've already done your homework and you're starting a podcast, you don't know why not having one is important.
- sbuk 4y agoSpotify?
- jonp888 4y agoThat's not a comparable situation. Spotify sign contracts with successful podcasters who they pay(> $100 million in one case) to produce content for their platform. The argument here is that by offering a "Click here to start your [not really a]podcast" button, Apple is suckering in people who don't understand how Apple's iDevice-only offering differs from every other podcast hosting service.
- bastawhiz 4y agoIt's actually not clear whether Spotify hosts the content or whether they simply pay for exclusivity.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]