There was a recently a review of Apple Classical in The New Yorker [1], which compares it to a few other services, some also mentioned in this thread. Apparently, many fare better on grouping compositions as an serious listener would appreciate.
I'm not sure if the other options own their own label(s), though. It will be interesting to see how this acquisition shapes the content available on the app.
The article being reported on does not make this conclusion. The study authors are interested only in the time it takes for (human) users to complete CAPTCHAs, and did not examine the speed at which bots solve them.
The fact that bots can solve them -- and solve them fast -- is apparently a well-established fact in the literature. There is a table in the article comparing its (human) participants' solve times to a number of previous studies which examined how fast/accurate bots can be.
The Register (and the New Scientist, which most of this is cribbed from) is looking for a headline, so whatever. But the study's authors say that the "surprising" part is that "solving time and user perception are not always correlated" for human users. Game-based CAPTCHAs with sliders may take longer, but the users in the study still enjoyed them more than image-selection-based ones.
I just checked to see if Ctrl-F and Ctrl-B work, and found that the former kills one word forward and the latter acts like Ctrl-W ought to?