|
|
|
|
|
by Jedd
950 days ago
|
|
This feels like a disingenuous take on TFA's in-passing reference. Spotify spending USD$100-$200 million on, say, that particular angertainment professional got a lot of people riled up because a) he's actively, demonstrably harmful, b) they had zero interest in patronising him, let along listening to him, but mostly c) their subscription costs had gone up to cover this indefensible payment. Like TFA, I get my podcasts elsewhere, partly because the spotify app is unwieldy for music, but just plain user hostile for podcasts - but I'd appreciate a multi-tiered service offering from Spotify where I don't use, and therefore don't pay for, any podcast content from them. Similar to the different package options for TV services, where live sports were expensive but you could opt out of them. |
|
No it didn’t. It got a tiny minority of a certain insignificant type upset. Step out into the real world and the number one podcast is, by definition, well received.