4 ms·

So the charitable interpretation is that they're trying to compete with Spotify's walled garden, by... doing the same thing themselves? This also doesn't help

So the charitable interpretation is that they're trying to compete with Spotify's walled garden, by... doing the same thing themselves? This also doesn't help them compete with Spotify anyway, since they use their own directory and hosting system. The only ones hurt here are third-party clients and end users. The ones you think they're trying to "protect".

MBCook 4y ago
If a podcast was only ever going to be available to people who paid, it means people using the Apple podcast app might still be able to get it if they can prevent an exclusivity deal. If a podcast was available both free and paid, it will still be available for free. And maybe the paid option isn’t exclusive. In either case, Spotify (or whoever) might not be stealing users and market share they could use to force things in their favor further. I’m not arguing this is good. I don’t like the trend of “you can only listen to it in $APP”, and I would agree with some others those shouldn’t be called podcasts. I’m just saying Apple isn’t starting the fight, they’re trying not to be caught flat-footed by all the others who were.
- kristiandupont 4y ago
  >If a podcast was only ever going to be available to people who paid, it means people using the Apple podcast app might still be able to get it if they can prevent an exclusivity deal. I don't understand exactly what you are saying, but if you mean that they wanted to offer a way to publish paid content, that doesn't explain or justify why they would add DRM to all content uploaded, which is what the author is upset about.