Yeah the App Store rules suck and that’s all on Apple, but I find it a bit silly for Spotify to repeatedly act surprised about them. It’s the same cycle: Spotify wants go around App Store rules → Apple says no → Spotify fires up the timetoplayfair dot com with slightly tweaked text to fit whatever issue they have this time.
Audiobooks on Spotify
91–100 of 269 posts
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Podcasting 2.0 is mostly about removing ads, shifting to a direct streaming monetary support model via crypto. The bonus with this model is once advertisers are removed free speech is no longer a problem. Also a big focus on decentralization in order to prevent censorship.
> The bonus with this model is once advertisers are removed free speech is no longer a problem. How is it a problem now? RSS feeds already can't be taken down by angry third-parties, and offer perfectly usable decentralization. Advertising is entirely an at-will process for podcast hosts, so they can choose whether or not they want to shackle themselves to a third-party that might object to the content they spread. C…
If you accept money from an advertiser and say something they don't like they can threaten to pull funding. Sort of like how none of the us "news" media will say anything against pharma, sponsored by phizer!
Direct support of shows by listeners is a much more honest relationship and liberating for podcasters but there is nothing in PC2.0 saying you have to use these features, it is simply enabling an alternate funding model. If you don't get the value for value principal in the first place it's not going to make sense though.
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Podcasting 2.0 is mostly about removing ads, shifting to a direct streaming monetary support model via crypto. The bonus with this model is once advertisers are removed free speech is no longer a problem. Also a big focus on decentralization in order to prevent censorship.
I'm not sure there is anything in podcasting 2.0 about removing ads. I don't think the distribution protocol can do anything about ads that are baked into the mp3s on the hosting side.
You are correct, not forcing this on anyone. They are offering a solid alternative to ads with the streaming sats model. It's more in line with the principal of value for value.
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are not, by definition, a podcast because they don't have a valid rss feed Does a podcast need to have a rss feed? All I see in definitions is that its an audio format made available over the internet. > And of course there's zero chance they will embrace podcast 2.0 features What is Podcasting 2.0? All I see is a bunch of people doing podcasting differently, namely adding ads and crypto.
> Does a podcast need to have a rss feed? Canonically, yes. RSS is how podcasts are distributed, and why any podcast app can play any podcast. However, Spotify marketing has bastardized words like "podcast" and "podcasting" by using them to refer to their closed, proprietary platform. That strategy is working brilliantly, and so the future of podcasting is probably proprietary platforms on one side, and bullshit "2.0…
It's pretty much embrace, extend ..
They're benefiting from the open ecosystem whilst simultaneously damaging it.
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The bonus with this model is once advertisers are removed free speech is no longer a problem. How is it a problem now? RSS feeds already can't be taken down by angry third-parties, and offer perfectly usable decentralization. Advertising is entirely an at-will process for podcast hosts, so they can choose whether or not they want to shackle themselves to a third-party that might object to the content they spread. C…
If you accept money from an advertiser and say something they don't like they can threaten to pull funding. Sort of like how none of the us "news" media will say anything against pharma, sponsored by phizer! Direct support of shows by listeners is a much more honest relationship and liberating for podcasters but there is nothing in PC2.0 saying you have to use these features, it is simply enabling an alternate fundin…
How is direct support limited in a traditional podcasting model, though? Nobody is forced to accept advertisements for their podcast. If you do, that comes with a risk that someone will stop paying you. With traditional podcasts you can still embed Paypal accounts/Bitcoin wallets if that's what you want.
I just fail to see how Podcasting 2.0 is a significant change over Podcasting 1.0. Everything you've listed already exists in RSS.
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My podcasts arrive using a different app with the backing of the RSS standard, not Spotify's internal standard. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I think Spotify did a good job of handling the problem of "premium" podcasts. There's no way to make a "premium" podcast (one you charge people to access) that is fully compatible with the original open vision of podcasting. You can either pervert the original RSS…
What's wrong with HTTP basic auth for this use case? https://subscriber-id:subscriber-token@podcast.host/feed.rss In what way does this "pollute" or "pervert" the open standard? Apple and Spotify are companies, not people, this is not high school, Apple is not "bully"ing Spotify, they have a business relationship. In general your comment is loaded with emotional language that seems to muddle the issue rather than cla…
I didn't consider HTTP basic auth as part of the open ecosystem because it's not, as far as I know, widely supported by clients. Is it? Maybe my assumption was wrong.
But it's also not part of the original "open" podcast vision because it is closed by definition, on an access level, and opens the door to tracking. Wouldn't most users in the open ecosystem be confused by an auth prompt? Wouldn't it be better for the open ecosystem if this sort of essentially closed feed just be cleanly inside Spotify (or whoever else's app)? This is my thinking, although I appreciate that opinions can differ.
I agree my language like "pervert" and "corrupt" can read as emotional, but I deployed it because I was trying to argue against the people who criticize Spotify using similar language, not to criticize anyone or raise emotions. If anything I'm trying to praise Spotify here.
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#97No other company do I hate and love so much. I love their discovery algorithms and find new music through them so often. I look forward to my new Discover Weekly every Monday. But in every other way they drive me crazy. The UI is terrible and basic but I've learned to live with it. What I absolutely can't stand is inserting podcasts and audio books into the app with no option to opt-out. I get that they want to put t…
I used to love the Discovery Weekly list as well. But since a couple of years, my account recommendations went into some strange niche solution and they recommend the same rubbish over and over again. I even get annoyed at certain genres that I used to mildly enjoy before. If you try to look for a solution, apparently the only way is to cancel the subscription, delete the account, resubscribe and start over ... I wis…
Agreed. I actually switched to Apple Music because the recommendations had gotten so consistently bad/weird.
I wonder if it's related to money somehow, if some artists are accepting a lower cut in exchange for being placed on these playlists more frequently.
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#98As a consumer, I’ve actually come to prefer in app purchases. I love when a subscription is available on IAP because for something like a newspaper, I know that I can cancel it with a couple of taps instead of having to fill out some long retention form or call someone.
Fine if you prefer that, but this is no reason for Apple to enforce it as the only allowed option.
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#99As a consumer, I’ve actually come to prefer in app purchases. I love when a subscription is available on IAP because for something like a newspaper, I know that I can cancel it with a couple of taps instead of having to fill out some long retention form or call someone.
This is 100% how I feel.
Too many of these companies have dark patterns for canceling your subscription (or hoping you forget you have one) that I actively stay away from most services that I can't just use an IAP with. This is largely thanks to all of this being consolidated in a single UI where with just a couple clicks (without ever needing to open the app and dealing with their marketing or 20 questions) I can cancel a subscription.
Apple will email me when a yearly subscription is about to bill, clearly telling me how I can manage or cancel it (again outside of the app).
I understand why businesses may not like this, but as a consumer I value this heavily (and yes I do find myself annoyed by what I often hear also being in the tech industry).
At the same time for individual digital purchases I don't want to give every company my credit card. I would much rather that go through Apple.
I understand the concern about the "30% cut" but I wish these companies would also realize that I (and I assume many others) spend more money though my phone because I can do it through Apple where otherwise you would not be getting my money in the first place. So its 70% or nothing from me. Especially when there are alternatives that will be more than happy to take that money from me.
That doesn't mean that I don't use my credit card in some places. But those are for physical items. Likely at stores that already have my credit card in the first place.
At the end of the day, it is Spotify that is choosing to make customers jump through hoops. They chose to enter this market knowing that this will be an issue (if they did not expect this issue... honestly fire whoever decided to go into this market).
Re: Audiobooks on Spotify
#100As a consumer, I’ve actually come to prefer in app purchases. I love when a subscription is available on IAP because for something like a newspaper, I know that I can cancel it with a couple of taps instead of having to fill out some long retention form or call someone.
Fine if you prefer that, but this is no reason for Apple to enforce it as the only allowed option.
If apple opens the floodgates allowing these purchases outside of this option, why would a company give apple's option to consumers?
Apple enforcing it is the only reason as a consumer I don't have to deal with park patterns for many of the apps I use. Which is a good thing for consumers