If a podcast cannot be listened to in a podcast player, and instead requires a proprietary app and an account with a commercial service, is it still right to call it a "podcast?"
If a podcast cannot be listened to in a podcast player, and instead requires a proprietary app and an account with a commercial service, is it still right to call it a "podcast?"
Technically, no. But I think aruging over the semantics is a distraction. The classic definition of podcast (audio or video served via an RSS feed) is very different from the popular definition...
Technically, no. But I think aruging over the semantics is a distraction. The classic definition of podcast (audio or video served via an RSS feed) is very different from the popular definition (any media that isn't music or an audio book that someone listens to on their phone).
The semantics is actually my biggest annoyance with the whole situation. I don't have any problem with people distributing their content via whatever means or services they feel best suits them,...
The semantics is actually my biggest annoyance with the whole situation. I don't have any problem with people distributing their content via whatever means or services they feel best suits them, but "Podcast" used to have a very specific meaning that has become far less useful now that it's a blanket term encompassing things that a traditional podcast players have no access to (YouTube channels, Spotify shows, etc.)
I wish there were alternate terms that could distinguish between these, but I think the only way that could happen would be for traditional podcasters to agree on and adopt some new term. Probably unlikely, but the commercial services voluntarily giving "Podcast" up is even more so.
This is just another version of the whole "Can a talkshow on YouTube be considered a podcast" debate. Except you have to make an account for Spotify, so one more barrier.
This is just another version of the whole "Can a talkshow on YouTube be considered a podcast" debate. Except you have to make an account for Spotify, so one more barrier.
For years I used "podcast" for something that is supposed to be listened instead of watched. I recently learned the word "audiocast" as a way to differentiate between those and "video podcasts". I...
For years I used "podcast" for something that is supposed to be listened instead of watched. I recently learned the word "audiocast" as a way to differentiate between those and "video podcasts". I find that stupid, but don't think anyone can prevent the switch. Ideally, YouTube podcasts should be something like "vidcasts" instead.
Same for me, podcast for a long time implied to me that it was a strictly audio experience. The origin of the word also kind of lends itself to that definition (pod from iPod, which was only able...
Same for me, podcast for a long time implied to me that it was a strictly audio experience. The origin of the word also kind of lends itself to that definition (pod from iPod, which was only able to play audio originally). However it's origin also kind of explains why the term is fuzzy, since it was named for the device most commonly used, not necessarily the format of the media.
I don't think I agree with this assessment. Sure, it'll be difficult for someone to reach the heights of a Joe Rogan or a Serial without the help of an algorithm/big tech company. But niche...
But it’s also a bummer that podcasts are being tamed. As soon as something gets popular and potentially lucrative enough, digital services that are relatively uncontrolled become a land grab for tech gatekeepers. And with that land grab, we’ll probably see a bit less creative freedom.
I don't think I agree with this assessment. Sure, it'll be difficult for someone to reach the heights of a Joe Rogan or a Serial without the help of an algorithm/big tech company. But niche podcasts crop up all the time, and are still capable of sustaining themselves or making a profit, simply through word of mouth (The Film Reroll, Lets Know Things and Kill James Bond being a few examples that spring to mind). Podcasts are just built on RSS, so I find it hard to see a way that Spotify and the like could kill the medium for small creators.
Hell yea. Aaaaaand subscribed. Thanks for that one! I think one of the advantages that podcasts have over something like movie/tv (Netflix) and even songs is an extremely low bar of entry. Even...
The Film Reroll
Hell yea.
Kill James Bond
Aaaaaand subscribed. Thanks for that one!
I think one of the advantages that podcasts have over something like movie/tv (Netflix) and even songs is an extremely low bar of entry. Even though a lot of people can play/sing music, there's a certain level of quality needed, and you really can't put it out very quickly. A podcast on the other hand, you shove a microphone in front of 2+ people, and someone will likely be interested in listening to whatever they're talking about.
On top of that, IMO I don't think a lot of people start a podcast because they want to make money with it. Is it a consideration and something they aspire to? Quite possibly. But because the cost of entry is so low, you don't really have much in the way of expenses to make back if you want to take a stab at it.
All of which is great, because then people are more inclined to try out weird ideas that they're not entirely sure will work.
If a podcast cannot be listened to in a podcast player, and instead requires a proprietary app and an account with a commercial service, is it still right to call it a "podcast?"
Technically, no. But I think aruging over the semantics is a distraction. The classic definition of podcast (audio or video served via an RSS feed) is very different from the popular definition (any media that isn't music or an audio book that someone listens to on their phone).
The semantics is actually my biggest annoyance with the whole situation. I don't have any problem with people distributing their content via whatever means or services they feel best suits them, but "Podcast" used to have a very specific meaning that has become far less useful now that it's a blanket term encompassing things that a traditional podcast players have no access to (YouTube channels, Spotify shows, etc.)
I wish there were alternate terms that could distinguish between these, but I think the only way that could happen would be for traditional podcasters to agree on and adopt some new term. Probably unlikely, but the commercial services voluntarily giving "Podcast" up is even more so.
This is just another version of the whole "Can a talkshow on YouTube be considered a podcast" debate. Except you have to make an account for Spotify, so one more barrier.
For years I used "podcast" for something that is supposed to be listened instead of watched. I recently learned the word "audiocast" as a way to differentiate between those and "video podcasts". I find that stupid, but don't think anyone can prevent the switch. Ideally, YouTube podcasts should be something like "vidcasts" instead.
A vodcast, if you will.
Same for me, podcast for a long time implied to me that it was a strictly audio experience. The origin of the word also kind of lends itself to that definition (pod from iPod, which was only able to play audio originally). However it's origin also kind of explains why the term is fuzzy, since it was named for the device most commonly used, not necessarily the format of the media.
I don't think I agree with this assessment. Sure, it'll be difficult for someone to reach the heights of a Joe Rogan or a Serial without the help of an algorithm/big tech company. But niche podcasts crop up all the time, and are still capable of sustaining themselves or making a profit, simply through word of mouth (The Film Reroll, Lets Know Things and Kill James Bond being a few examples that spring to mind). Podcasts are just built on RSS, so I find it hard to see a way that Spotify and the like could kill the medium for small creators.
Hell yea.
Aaaaaand subscribed. Thanks for that one!
I think one of the advantages that podcasts have over something like movie/tv (Netflix) and even songs is an extremely low bar of entry. Even though a lot of people can play/sing music, there's a certain level of quality needed, and you really can't put it out very quickly. A podcast on the other hand, you shove a microphone in front of 2+ people, and someone will likely be interested in listening to whatever they're talking about.
On top of that, IMO I don't think a lot of people start a podcast because they want to make money with it. Is it a consideration and something they aspire to? Quite possibly. But because the cost of entry is so low, you don't really have much in the way of expenses to make back if you want to take a stab at it.
All of which is great, because then people are more inclined to try out weird ideas that they're not entirely sure will work.
Archived.