|
Top-level
 @jamescridland I'll have to strongly disagree with your conclusions on this. Companies like Spotify do not get to redefine what the word "podcast" means any more than some random company can just decide what a "website" is. And no, some audio show that's exclusively on YouTube or BBC or whatever is *not* a podcast. The reason the public is confused is because (some) tech journalists aren't doing their damn job. 71 comments
 @jamescridland @jaredwhite There's no point in arguing about semantics. For me the real issue with Spotify exclusive podcasts is that I can't access them from my favorite podcast player (@AntennaPod). So this is an issue of accessibility and freedom to choose how you wanna listen. This is why platforms like Spotify is known as a walled garden, not supporting open standards like RSS was a deliberate decision to keep people locked onto their platform & apps. @futureisfoss @jaredwhite @AntennaPod Agree - walled gardens are bad for podcasting. (And if AntennaPod supported more podcast 2.0 features, I'd be using it more too; I use Pocket Casts and Fountain). @jamescridland @futureisfoss @jaredwhite @AntennaPod @jamescridland @jaredwhite I didn't realize your job was to redefine a word so that it matches corporate interests. Hmm. Interesting. @jaredwhite I would also add - the use of "tech journalist" doesn't help your argument. People talking about the content in podcasts - whether they're open RSS enclosures or things like Joe Rogan - aren't tech journalists. They're media journalists. I come from radio. A lot of radio (but by no means the majority) is now listened-to online, rather than radio waves. Doesn't stop it from being "radio", though. @jamescridland The ecosystem of podcasting, like the ecosystem of the blogosphere before it, like the ecosystem of the web itself, has a certain inherent set of characteristics. One of them is that you can subscribe to a podcast in any player which supports podcasts. I consider that an inviolate feature of this medium. If I can't subscribe to your podcast in my player of choice, it's not a podcast. @jamescridland With regard to "aren't tech journalists. They're media journalists" What? Are you trying to tell me that because someone's a "media journalist" it means that they don't have any responsibility to understand the basic technology by which said media is distributed? That's a total cop out. @jaredwhite With respect, I think it would be a good idea to read the article I've shared, wind your neck in a little, and think for a bit about "distribution platforms" vs "media formats". You don't get to tell millions of people listening to Joe Rogan that they aren't listening to a podcast. @jamescridland @jaredwhite For awhile I took the revised thought that aggregated platforms - the slight precursor to Spotify etc. was they _still_ used that underlying RSS feed to consume our podcast feeds to bring them into their walled garden - end users may not use RSS directly (even with say Pocket Casts I’m not sure the _player_ uses RSS now - the server… sure. @talios @jamescridland Well that's just splitting hairs. Whether Pocket Casts' servers download the RSS and then send the info to my client, or my client downloads it directly, is an implementation detail. The point is that Pocket Casts is nothing more than the middleman between where the feed is hosted and my ears. @jaredwhite @jamescridland true - just saying in that instance - as far as an end user is concerned there's nothing RSS specbabble involved in the consumption of a podcast. @jaredwhite @talios But, whether it uses RSS at all or not is also just an implementation detail. The product that we describe is a piece of on-demand audio. It isn't wedded to a delivery platform or mechanism. Perhaps it was once. @jamescridland @jaredwhite I guess with the recent rise of Mastodon/Fediverse - reminding, and _maybe_ returning to the roots of podcasting away from walled gardens isn’t a bad thing. That may be fine for grass roots indie podcasters, but the high-profile big-money media behind Podcasts-with-a-capital-P just might not care. We’ve removed (one of) the technical barriers to getting peoples voices heard - and that’s always a good thing. @talios @jamescridland @jaredwhite I mean by all means call out “Spotify exclusive podcasts are bad for the common good”. I agree with that 100% as a good fight. Fighting to say that “they shouldn’t be technically called podcasts” is beating a dead horse and achieves nothing except mainstream eyes glazing over IMO. @talios Speaking as a coder who works closely with industry folks on audio distribution tech, I can assure you the corporate execs and marketing types don't care at all about the distinction. Personally I do care whether I can open the program in a non-proprietary podcast app, as do many of the other techies who have been listening to podcasts for a while. But the name "podcast" has clout, so they gleefully colonize it despite our objections. @epilanthanomai @talios I appreciate hearing your perspective! Here's the thing I find upsetting. Podcasting becomes popular because it's so open, so accessible, such a low barrier to entry for a whole ecosystem of hosts and directories and players, etc. Much like the web itself. Then some corporate entities come along, gather up all that goodwill, and then use it to their advantage in a closed way—effectively stealing the brand. Business gonna business, but it sure rubs me the wrong way. @jamescridland @talios @jamescridland @jaredwhite @talios @jamescridland @jaredwhite Insofar as it matters (not very far, I grant you!) Pocket Casts does use RSS on the client, even the web client. It makes cross-site requests to the RSS feeds to refresh and stream the audio. The server is just for synching subscription lists and listening positions. Not very important, but knowing how things work is fun. @jamescridland It's worth noting that not all of the Spotify-branded original shows are exclusive to Spotify. Of the ones that can be played in other players via RSS, those are most certainly podcasts. But it is my contention that when that's not the case, as it seems to be still with The Joe Rogan Experience, that then does not qualify as a podcast. @jaredwhite I understand where you're coming from, now you've calmed down and stopped shouting at reporters. I think the ship has sailed though. I understand your technical definition of what you consider a podcast; but I also look at this from a consumer point of view. There is no difference between Rogan and No Agenda; no difference between a BBC Sounds show and one on Apple Podcasts. It's a piece of on-demand audio, a bit like a radio show. And that is what most people call a podcast. @jamescridland @jaredwhite hi, I don't know either of you and I definitely don't have a horse in the "definition of a podcast" race but I am fascinated by your characterizing of Jared's language here as "yelling at reporters." To me it all comes across as very measured and polite, never turns personal in any way and allows for the presence of differing opinions while taking a position and holding it out of principle. Are you willing to clarify what you mean by this? @mshaw @jamescridland @jaredwhite Yeah, the "now you've calmed down and stopped shouting at reporters" bit was uncalled for. The phrase was: "tech journalists aren't doing their damn job" which doesn't really come across as measured, polite, or proportionate. I do my damn job. I do it very damn well. @muhkayoh @mshaw @jaredwhite I'd also suggest that the initial post from Jared was written very combatively, from the "Read My Lips" kick-off. Make a point, yes, but don't make it while being rude and inconsiderate, and best not to denigrate an entire profession while you do it. That's not really the best plan if you're trying to change the world. @jamescridland @mshaw @jaredwhite I see your bio says "passionate about audio." Could that passion be causing you to project a little? @jamescridland @muhkayoh @jaredwhite I see, thanks for clarifying. To be honest this strikes me as a shockingly low tolerance threshold, especially for someone in the profession of journalism (my mother the retired science museum curator gets more heated in discussing her birding newsletter), but I appreciate your honesty. @mshaw @muhkayoh @jaredwhite Thanks for your unsolicited thoughts on whether I should or shouldn't have just rolled over when someone tells me to "do my damn job". I think I'll go with my own thoughts on the matter, though! :) @jamescridland @mshaw @muhkayoh @jaredwhite maybe you should be looking into a career that's less public facing, if this discussion about technology terminology is upsetting you so much @jamescridland @jaredwhite I've rarely been so dissuaded from clicking a link. Incidentally, how would you define a blog? @jamescridland @jaredwhite No. They're not listening to a podcast. They're listening to a ranting idiot on Spotify. Just like Calm's/Audible's gated content was never a podcast. It has similar form, but no feed = no podcast. You the media journalist are telling us that our problem is that we aren't putting the audience's views first? I mean we're "the audience" every bit as much as the 18% of people who say they listen to podcasts on YouTube, and while I certainly have my disagreements with Joe Rogan listeners I don't have any evidence that they think of it as a "podcast" versus an audio show. (1/2) Words belong to their users, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose uses that unnecessarily destroy clarity. If you tell me something is a "podcast", I'm going to try to play it on what every person agrees is a "podcast player." Nontechnical people don't talk about "RSS protocol" or "walled gardens" but will understand "It is an audio show that is not a podcast, and therefore won't work on your podcast app." That's why the distinction is important to clarity. @jamescridland @jaredwhite I just assume anyone who’s listening to Joe Rohan is too stupid to understand what a podcast actually is. @jamescridland @jaredwhite nothing to stop a radio programme also being delivered as a podcast through. The BBC is very good at it. A fact, that as I live in Australia, I'm very glad of. @jaredwhite @jamescridland seems pretty clear over the course of human history that mass common usage is what defines (and redefines) meanings of words.  @bed @jaredwhite @jamescridland Well no. Usage can be distinguished from definition. The confusion of terms into a generic usage is common, Hoovers for vacuum cleaners and Kleenex for tissues, for example but we can still distinguish the actual from the generic. RSS is a distribution format which when it includes audio is called a podcast, the general listener doesn't care about that. If it's generally available it's a podcast (includes BBC). @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland yes I understand the technical definition and the differences. These are different from the common understandings. My wife for example doesn’t know or care what an RSS feed is and nor should she ever need to care. Common understanding isn’t technical and nor should it be. @bed @jaredwhite @jamescridland Knowing that it's the distribution and availability that defines it, rather than the platform is useful (BBC podcasts are available as RSS). @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland useful to technical people sure. To everyone else they’re all just podcasts (audio episodes of content playable on demand and subscrible to). Public RSS feeds is merely an implementation detail. @bed @jaredwhite @jamescridland You just repeated what I said already. Some streamed audio can't be played except on the owning/licensed platform. As I said RSS is the distribution format, not the distribution itself. But I would say it's likely the format most common freely available is in. @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland apologies we seem to be caught in reply chaos ;) my argument is just in support for calling all subscribe-able on-demand audio to be called “podcasts”. That some are delivered by public RSS and some are exclusive to one platform is an implementation detail that most people don’t care about. This is arguing with the OP’s contention that only public RSS delivered audio are allowed to be called podcasts. @bed @jaredwhite @jamescridland True, on the reply chaos. I'd only say that if it's only available on one platform (which may even be public) it can't be a podcast because that independence of platform is the real defining characteristic. If there was an alternative portable open format then there's nothing to stop that being used for a podcast.  "Most people don't care about" anything at all until it is far too late to change it for the better. Look all around you. This is the biggest community of Don Quixotes I've ever seen, and once we get a taste of the freedom from corporate-controlled garbage, we ain't letting go of it. I'm all for "lost" causes, because they're only truly lost when you decide to surrender them. @RL_Dane @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland I don’t disagree. My point is argue against exclusivity itself. Don’t argue semantics on terminology @RL_Dane @simon_lucy @jaredwhite it’s a nice ideal, I just don’t think it’s particularly pragmatic. Good luck tho! @bed @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland the question is though what should people care about? Not the technical details, but I think open versus closed platform is very important for everyone @jaredwhite @jamescridland I feel like this argument isn't actually about the word. It's about what had been a haven of independent creators creating an ecosystem, and how big money is trying to scoop and own it all, and us indies want the audience to know the difference. And if we want to communicate with the audience, we need to use their language... @jaredwhite @jamescridland ...I think it would be more effective to add some adjectives. So "Spotify Exclusive" = "Corporate Podcast,” or something like that.  @jaredwhite @jamescridland Stuff like this is why so many of us so adamantly and incessantly bleat #ProtocolsNotPlatforms but it all seems in vain. Certainly #media are a source of headwinds for this informational campaign. Obviously this is because media are, by their very nature, monetized. I don't think monetized activity is possible on a (open) protocol, and it seems non-monetized activity is nearly impossible on a #platform (or even a platform-dominated #web). |
Gregory's Server
@jaredwhite I'm doing my job, mate.