4 ms·

A requirements update from August 2022: > Apple Podcasts will make the following updates to RSS feed requirements in 2023: […] > Atom feeds > Update: No lon

A requirements update from August 2022: > Apple Podcasts will make the following updates to RSS feed requirements in 2023: […] > Atom feeds > Update: No longer supported > New shows in Atom feed format will no longer be accepted and any remaining shows will no longer be updated. * https://podcasters.apple.com/4115-technical-updates-for-hosting-providers https://podcasters.apple.com/4115-technical-updates-for-host... WTF Apple? AFAICT Google Podcasts is doing the same as Apple and only using RSS 2.0. Nothing is stopping people from providing both RSS 2.0 and Atom, and given that most feeds are probably auto-generated, probably not hard to do so, but it is disappointing.

CharlesW 3y ago
Apple and Google did this because (1) alternative feed formats like Atom or JSON Feed weren't being used, and (2) a few years ago, the podcasting industry and standards bodies chose to require RSS for extensions/enhancements.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > alternative feed formats like Atom or JSON Feed weren't being used What? I think about half of the RSS feeds I subscribe to are Atom-based.
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    (You’re making me cringe, calling Atom feeds RSS feeds. Just “feeds” is a perfectly good word.)
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Sorry about that. I didn't know that was a thing that made people cringe.
      - chrismorgan 3y ago
        Feeds are the generic concept, and RSS and Atom are two different implementations of the concept. It’s like googling something using Bing.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > I think about half of the RSS feeds I subscribe to are Atom-based. Meaning, they have an `atom` namespace declaration? Because that's very common in RSS feeds, and is required for Podcast Standards Project-compliant feeds. Apple supports RSS feeds that use the `atom` namespace.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I thought they were the actual Atom specification, but perhaps not. I haven't actually looked at the XML in a long time.
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  Atom wasn’t being used in podcasting because it wasn’t supported by key podcasting platforms! I know from my research of multiple entities that tried to use Atom (since it’s obviously and unambiguously superior), particularly because of some things that claimed Atom was supported, but gave up because it turned out that even most of the platform things that claimed support didn’t actually support it, either at all or fully. As for things like JSON Feed, that’s never been a serious contender. This Apple Podcasts update saying “we no longer support Atom” genuinely surprises me, because when I looked a couple of years ago, as far as I could tell as an outsider with no access to any of their software, they didn’t support Atom, and never had. I’m not certain what you’re referring to as “the podcasting industry and standards bodies”, since I haven’t been paying attention to the space (a couple of years back it seemed a bleak wilderness). If it’s things like https://podstandards.org/ https://podstandards.org/, well, “Apple has created some thoughtful vendor-specific extensions to the RSS standard”… bleh. I cannot understand how anyone could have anything but scorn for the mess that is podcasting RSS. It’s shamefully bad, and the paragraphs there are rather baffling to me in their untempered praise for Apple and condemnation of (unspecified) others. As for their standard, they’re explicitly standards-washing certain Apple interests (though I will admit that most of the iTunes namespace stuff is generally useful), adding stuff that has no place in a “required standard” (funding!? And what happened to the <link rel> mechanism for some of that stuff, which would obviously be appropriate? There really looks to be a lot of poorly-thought out stuff in this).
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > Atom wasn’t being used in podcasting because it wasn’t supported by key podcasting platforms! But Apple did for many years, no? If Atom was obviously and unambiguously better for the use case, Atom would've been successful for that use case. > I cannot understand how anyone could have anything but scorn for the mess that is podcasting RSS. I built a reasonably popular podcast feed validator and don't understand which part is a mess. If you wouldn't mind sharing, I know the Podcast Standards Project folks are considering what their next project should be. > …the paragraphs there are rather baffling to me in their untempered praise for Apple and condemnation of (unspecified) others. Spotify's embrace/extend/extinguish approach successfully killed the original "open medium" meaning of the word "podcasting". Whatever your other critiques of Apple, they worked within the RSS standard.

CharlesW 3y ago

Apple and Google did this because (1) alternative feed formats like Atom or JSON Feed weren't being used, and (2) a few years ago, the podcasting industry and standards bodies chose to require RSS for extensions/enhancements.

JohnFen 3y ago
> alternative feed formats like Atom or JSON Feed weren't being used What? I think about half of the RSS feeds I subscribe to are Atom-based.
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  (You’re making me cringe, calling Atom feeds RSS feeds. Just “feeds” is a perfectly good word.)
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Sorry about that. I didn't know that was a thing that made people cringe.
    - chrismorgan 3y ago
      Feeds are the generic concept, and RSS and Atom are two different implementations of the concept. It’s like googling something using Bing.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > I think about half of the RSS feeds I subscribe to are Atom-based. Meaning, they have an `atom` namespace declaration? Because that's very common in RSS feeds, and is required for Podcast Standards Project-compliant feeds. Apple supports RSS feeds that use the `atom` namespace.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I thought they were the actual Atom specification, but perhaps not. I haven't actually looked at the XML in a long time.
chrismorgan 3y ago
Atom wasn’t being used in podcasting because it wasn’t supported by key podcasting platforms! I know from my research of multiple entities that tried to use Atom (since it’s obviously and unambiguously superior), particularly because of some things that claimed Atom was supported, but gave up because it turned out that even most of the platform things that claimed support didn’t actually support it, either at all or fully. As for things like JSON Feed, that’s never been a serious contender. This Apple Podcasts update saying “we no longer support Atom” genuinely surprises me, because when I looked a couple of years ago, as far as I could tell as an outsider with no access to any of their software, they didn’t support Atom, and never had. I’m not certain what you’re referring to as “the podcasting industry and standards bodies”, since I haven’t been paying attention to the space (a couple of years back it seemed a bleak wilderness). If it’s things like https://podstandards.org/ https://podstandards.org/, well, “Apple has created some thoughtful vendor-specific extensions to the RSS standard”… bleh. I cannot understand how anyone could have anything but scorn for the mess that is podcasting RSS. It’s shamefully bad, and the paragraphs there are rather baffling to me in their untempered praise for Apple and condemnation of (unspecified) others. As for their standard, they’re explicitly standards-washing certain Apple interests (though I will admit that most of the iTunes namespace stuff is generally useful), adding stuff that has no place in a “required standard” (funding!? And what happened to the <link rel> mechanism for some of that stuff, which would obviously be appropriate? There really looks to be a lot of poorly-thought out stuff in this).
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Atom wasn’t being used in podcasting because it wasn’t supported by key podcasting platforms! But Apple did for many years, no? If Atom was obviously and unambiguously better for the use case, Atom would've been successful for that use case. > I cannot understand how anyone could have anything but scorn for the mess that is podcasting RSS. I built a reasonably popular podcast feed validator and don't understand which part is a mess. If you wouldn't mind sharing, I know the Podcast Standards Project folks are considering what their next project should be. > …the paragraphs there are rather baffling to me in their untempered praise for Apple and condemnation of (unspecified) others. Spotify's embrace/extend/extinguish approach successfully killed the original "open medium" meaning of the word "podcasting". Whatever your other critiques of Apple, they worked within the RSS standard.