|
Top-level
 @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). 16 comments
@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! @RL_Dane @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland agree! To clarify I don’t think fighting against closed platforms is a lost cause. I think it’s the trying to stop the term “podcast” being used by closed platforms that is the lost cause. I don't think anyone is realistically trying to stop *platforms*, that really WOULD be tilting at windmills. But advocacy? Persuasion? Even snark? That's where it's at! :ablobcatrave: @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 @zenten @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland agree strongly on this. Closed podcast platforms are worse for everyone and should be heavily criticised!  @bed @jamescridland @simon_lucy @jaredwhite It's not a technical detail whether my podcatcher of choice can listen to someone's "podcast" or not. It directly affects the value proposition and the usability of the "podcast".
|
Gregory's Server
@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.