3 ms·

Huh? Spotify is proprietary. Not sure why you'd expect a dictionary to say that or why you'd want it to.

by cxr 3y ago

latexr 3y ago
> Not sure why you'd expect a dictionary to say that or why you'd want it to. Because you wrote: > A piece of audio that you can only listen to if someone installs a proprietary app on a limited set of devices and taps the play button is definitely not a podcast. So it seems that not being proprietary is an important part of your definition of podcast.
- cxr 3y ago
  Proprietary apps are allowed to play podcasts. Audio that's only available within the ringfence of those proprietary apps is not. If it's not published as a digital file that I can get my hands on to play, save a copy, transcode, and sync to any of the devices under my control how I want, then it's not a podcast. Podcasts are about user control—over when they listen to it, where they listen to it, and how they listen to it. If you violate any one of these you're not talking about a podcast. You may be operating a successful platform, and you may have a billion marketing schmucks bandying the word around, and you may have a gajillion people with a fuzzy idea in their heads of what a podcast is and who are comfortable playing along, but it doesn't change what a podcast fundamentally is.
  - gainda 3y ago
    i think a podcast is more fundamentally about delivering audio content automatically than it is about user control. the term didn't originate until that function started happening. if it was an issue to be exclusive to one program then we absolutely would have a different term by now but society has been content to continue calling exclusive shows podcasts. shows that moved to Spotify are otherwise unchanged - so its not about control, its about how its distributed
    - cxr 3y ago
      > i think a podcast is more fundamentally about delivering audio content automatically than it is about user control. Sorry, but no. There's a reasonable argument to be made against my position that says that podcasting is really about empowering creators, rather than listeners, through guerilla/indie distribution channels that don't have to get signoff from anyone (e.g. traditional media companies) other than themselves when summoning the willpower to press the "upload" button. But those are really the only two positions a serious person can take. The automatic delivery connection is wrong. Not to diminish Dave Winer's work and influence, but RSS enclosures and podcasting were independently invented. The broad definition of podcast that people are advocating for elsewhere in this thread, wherein people refer to recordings posted to YouTube and Twitter as "podcasts" doesn't validate the automatic delivery angle, either. > if it was an issue to be exclusive to one program then we absolutely would have a different term by now Nah. This is a well-known junk argument. (Not about podcasting specifically, but as an illegal conversational "move". One step removed from begging the question.)
      - gainda 3y ago
        You may disagree but in these early sources a podcast is defined by Winer & Curry by how it is distributed. https://web.archive.org/web/20060507190027/http://www.scripting.com/2004/09/24.html#When:1:51:29PM https://web.archive.org/web/20060507190027/http://www.script... https://web.archive.org/web/20170629170506/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D6153DF93BA15753C1A9629C8B63 https://web.archive.org/web/20170629170506/http://query.nyti...

Huh? Spotify is proprietary. Not sure why you'd expect a dictionary to say that or why you'd want it to.

by cxr 3y ago

Huh? Spotify is proprietary. Not sure why you'd expect a dictionary to say that or why you'd want it to.

> Not sure why you'd expect a dictionary to say that or why you'd want it to. Because you wrote: > A piece of audio that you can only listen to if someone installs a proprietary app on a limited set of devices and taps the play button is definitely not a podcast. So it seems that not being proprietary is an important part of your definition of podcast.

cxr 3y ago
Proprietary apps are allowed to play podcasts. Audio that's only available within the ringfence of those proprietary apps is not. If it's not published as a digital file that I can get my hands on to play, save a copy, transcode, and sync to any of the devices under my control how I want, then it's not a podcast. Podcasts are about user control—over when they listen to it, where they listen to it, and how they listen to it. If you violate any one of these you're not talking about a podcast. You may be operating a successful platform, and you may have a billion marketing schmucks bandying the word around, and you may have a gajillion people with a fuzzy idea in their heads of what a podcast is and who are comfortable playing along, but it doesn't change what a podcast fundamentally is.
- gainda 3y ago
  i think a podcast is more fundamentally about delivering audio content automatically than it is about user control. the term didn't originate until that function started happening. if it was an issue to be exclusive to one program then we absolutely would have a different term by now but society has been content to continue calling exclusive shows podcasts. shows that moved to Spotify are otherwise unchanged - so its not about control, its about how its distributed
  - cxr 3y ago
    > i think a podcast is more fundamentally about delivering audio content automatically than it is about user control. Sorry, but no. There's a reasonable argument to be made against my position that says that podcasting is really about empowering creators, rather than listeners, through guerilla/indie distribution channels that don't have to get signoff from anyone (e.g. traditional media companies) other than themselves when summoning the willpower to press the "upload" button. But those are really the only two positions a serious person can take. The automatic delivery connection is wrong. Not to diminish Dave Winer's work and influence, but RSS enclosures and podcasting were independently invented. The broad definition of podcast that people are advocating for elsewhere in this thread, wherein people refer to recordings posted to YouTube and Twitter as "podcasts" doesn't validate the automatic delivery angle, either. > if it was an issue to be exclusive to one program then we absolutely would have a different term by now Nah. This is a well-known junk argument. (Not about podcasting specifically, but as an illegal conversational "move". One step removed from begging the question.)
    - gainda 3y ago
      You may disagree but in these early sources a podcast is defined by Winer & Curry by how it is distributed. https://web.archive.org/web/20060507190027/http://www.scripting.com/2004/09/24.html#When:1:51:29PM https://web.archive.org/web/20060507190027/http://www.script... https://web.archive.org/web/20170629170506/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D6153DF93BA15753C1A9629C8B63 https://web.archive.org/web/20170629170506/http://query.nyti...