Since I vehemently despise ads I have no issues with the subscription model as long as it remains convenient to play the audio any way I feel like (i.e. no intrusive DRM).

So I actually think that's a good evolution overall, I wish more of the internet moved away from ads and towards other monetization models.

For your audio app I suppose that it'll mean that you'll have to strike a deal with the podcast platforms to share some of the revenue or figure out an API to let people use their license keys on third party players. I understand that it's annoying but that sounds perfectly fair to me.

> a more closed platform

> convenient to play the audio any way I feel like (i.e. no intrusive DRM)

For instance with audio in general, we've seen lots of pushes toward streaming rather than downloading, which allows the platform to control when, where, and how people listen.

The podcasts are available for free, but funded by ads, or you can subscribe to the premium feed where the ads are edited out.

Yeah premium podcasts are already a thing. There's no need to "figure out an API to let people use their license keys on third party players", it's simply HTTP Basic authentication embedded in the URL. Should work just about anywhere.

I love the trend toward premium versions of things that are ads free, if I don’t want to be tracked and have annoying ads I should have that option. I think the internet overall would be a much better place if every service offered this.. pay for the service and escape the ads madness.

Totally agree on the rev share as well and I think that should be democratized much more so.. it should be possible for things to remain open as well as for creators to get paid

I think the issue is that you put the emphasis on “exclusive” instead of “podcasts”.

If it isn’t delivered over an RSS feed that I can subscribe to in my podcast player of choice, it’s not a podcast.

Would all it take to convince you that a podcast can delivered via something other than RSS, say ActivityPub, be your preferred client supporting it?

Calling some thing that is not playable in my podcast app and doesn’t use the same protocols as my other podcasts, isn’t a podcast. No more than a Word Doc is a web page.

I expect to be able to subscribe to a podcast using my podcast player via RSS.

You mean like TV shows? And radio shows? And newspaper comics?

Saying that podcasts have to be consumed via RSS is like saying that TV must be delivered via cable.

Would you say a Word document is a web page?

Funny enough, while HNers always complain about Apple’s “walled garden”, the Apple podcast player subscribes directly to the host’s RSS feed. Once you subscribe to a podcast, Apple’s servers are no longer involved.

Additionally, I do use bandwidth as my rough listener metric, so letting it be hosted by Google Podcasts would impact that significantly. Which is closer to the concern the BBC seems to have.

This was even mentioned to you roughly a month ago by someone else:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287119

Didn't seem to have much of a lasting impact on you.

The radio shows used to be downloadable without the songs due to license constraints. I'm guessing Sounds allows them via some kind of DRM to include music, but even at 28 days they time-out for me within the app a little too fast.

It already is happening, some podcasts on BBC Sounds are exclusive to BBC Sounds (albeit for a time limited period)

To suggest that Google trying to muscle into the podcast space by leveraging their search engine to direct people not to the podcast feed but to their own service is in any way equivalent to small creators adding value to their listeners by providing exclusive content is absurd to say the least.