I'm a bit out of the loop but wouldn't hosts have the original source material that they uploaded? Similar to how users have the source images/videos to whatever they upload to TikTok and Instagram? I suspect neither offer an export either.
Additionally, the author complains that an Apple Podcast user has to go through the app (and all its restrictions), but again, not that different from Instagram posts. As a user, you must go through Instagram to see photos. These users aren't there just for generic hosting, but also for the network effects. For those that want generic hosting, there are other more appropriate services, like google photos or maybe Flickr (or self hosting).
I'm not arguing the Podcasts/Instagram model is better, just that there is fairly old precedent, so the purported shock value seems pretty low.
It's perfectly reasonable for a user to pay a big company for hosting, and then delete their local copies, since they paid for hosting. And then assume that, because their data is publicly available, that they'll be able to download that information.
Getting your photos off of Instagram is easy, according to the top 10 search results for "Instagram photo downloader". But even then, the distinction that you're not paying Instagram for hosting is notable.
Or your computer crashed and you're having to rebuild from a failed backup. Or you're traveling away from your backups and need access. Or you upload from one device and usually download to your archive on another device. There are more scenarios in heaven and earth than I could possibly list here.
That you can't think of a single scenario in which people might want to rely on the previously-uploaded copies of a large binary files is one thing. That you dismiss the several I came up with off the top of my head is another.
> wouldn't hosts have the original source material that they uploaded
As far as I'm aware, Apple never resurfaces the audio after it's uploaded, even in your dashboard. Even if they did, making someone manually download and reupload every asset for potentially hundreds of episodes is sadistic. Moreover, you physically can't leave, because your listeners won't follow you to your new hosting service.
> These users aren't there just for generic hosting, but also for the network effects.
The network effects are limited to an app with only 40% of the market. Outside the US, that number is even smaller.
> just that there is fairly old precedent
Every podcast hosting service ever has allowed you to leave their service.
>Moreover, you physically can't leave, because your listeners won't follow you to your new hosting service.
This is patently not true. I've had to do this after a podcast host had an outage and our followers moved over because we posted on social that there was a new feed. Joe Rogan's followers moved to Spotify just fine after he removed all other traces of his show.
It's not great but you're literally getting what you pay for.
They don't need to. We didn't either since the server hosting the RSS feed was down. You just tell your subscribers to move on whatever platforms you're advertising on.
That wasn't possible as the host was completely down. I'm not sure if it was 100% but we had more followers on the new platform than the old one within the first month so most of them must have followed.
This is all Apple bringing their usual dirty tactics into an ecosystem that has historically been open. Everything Apple does is designed to keep you buying Apple products and services forever.
Except that "pod"casts have always been Apple's ecosystem. They've introduced a new product that is less open, but haven't actually stopped supporting the completely open options that have always existed.
What? Something historically being named after an Apple product doesn't make it Apple's ecosystem.
I've used Pocket Casts on Android for many years, and before that on iOS. I don't even know what the Apple podcast app looks like -- I carefully chose a podcast player that wouldn't lock me into its ecosystem. Podcasts have always been an open ecosystem, one that I greatly appreciate.
In addition to the audio, there's also show specific metadata like episode names, summaries, and show notes, which can get pretty comprehensive. It would maybe be a smart idea to have a copy of those outside of your hosting provider, but that's not common.
The bigger thing though is less about the data and more about your listeners. If you move to another podcast host, it's obviously important that your existing listeners move with you, and every public podcast host I'm aware of will happily redirect your feeds (as mentioned in the article)
With Apple you have to ask people to move, and asking people to take an action is necessarily going to involve a lot of churn and confusion.
Additionally, the author complains that an Apple Podcast user has to go through the app (and all its restrictions), but again, not that different from Instagram posts. As a user, you must go through Instagram to see photos. These users aren't there just for generic hosting, but also for the network effects. For those that want generic hosting, there are other more appropriate services, like google photos or maybe Flickr (or self hosting).
I'm not arguing the Podcasts/Instagram model is better, just that there is fairly old precedent, so the purported shock value seems pretty low.