You're viewing a single thread.
Just wanna say that there's no such thing as a "video podcast". You can have a video. You can have a podcast. You can have both, but you cannot have a "video podcast". I will die on this hill.
Also this guy actually had a podcast but abandoned it late last year. Presumably because they couldn't monetize it properly. This is exactly the kinda bullshit that we're seeing more and more, and why I'm calling this out.
Please don't support channels like this. Please stop calling it a "video podcast". It's just a video interview.
If you aren't consuming the content on a genuine Apple®️ iPod™️, then it is not a podcast.
Semantics. A podcast is and was something that was typically long format akin to a talk show - that was something that could be listened to without requiring you to watch it. It is not audio exclusive. Many radio shows may and do have video feeds but that does not prevent them from being called radio shows.
Many radio shows may and do have video feeds but that does not prevent them from being called radio shows.
Nor does it prevent it from being a podcast. What prevents it being a podcast is not being distributed as a podcast...
What exactly makes a podcast then?
It's a program with audio files that are distributed via RSS.
So if YouTube provided an RSS feed for its channels, all videos would be podcasts because they can be processed as audio-only and are distributed via RSS?
Yes. They provide that option already. However, this particular channel was not distributed that way.
Again semantics. You are attempting to split hairs based on distribution opposed to type. This is like being a pedant over someone referring to tissues as a Kleenex despite it not being that particular brand. Podcasts were ambiguous back when they were still new, too.
Shoutcast servers were/hosted digital broadcasts. Podcasts were containerized (aka offline) recordings of these. You could argue that calling a live show a podcast is technically incorrect: but thanks to language continuing to adapt to its environment... You'd actually just be out of date or misinformed.
You are attempting to split hairs based on distribution
This is not just semantics or "splitting hairs" or pedantic. How it's distributed is a fundamental property of what a podcast is.
If it's not, maybe you can tell me what a podcast is, and how it's different from a YouTube video?
You could argue that calling a live show a podcast is technically incorrect:
...why would I do that?
but thanks to language continuing to adapt to its environment...
This is not "language adaptation", this is a complete erosion of the meaning of the word.
We have words for videos, they're called "videos", which are fundamentally different from a "podcast".
Podcasts were containerized (aka offline) recordings of these.
Podcast are not necessarily offline. You can stream them.
If it's not, maybe you can tell me what a podcast is, and how it's different from a YouTube video?
If I can listen to the YouTube video without needing it for visual aid... that's just it: they're the same thing. This wraps nicely into the video podcast thing you were whinging about earlier.
...why would I do that?
Considering your stance on this topic... why wouldn't you? It'd be on brand.
This is not "language adaptation", this is a complete erosion of the meaning of the word.
I really was hoping you'd say this. Semantics. Again. Language isn't some dead unchanging thing. It morphs and adjusts with culture and technological changes.
By your logic you must surely lament the death of ancient 'proper' English circa 5th century before all those awful changes came about.
We have words for videos, they're called "videos", which are fundamentally different from a "podcast".
Synonyms exist. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge them might be your business... however the fact you understood the medium being spoken about suggests quite plainly that language has succeeded here.
Podcast are not necessarily offline. You can stream them.
Ah, but initially - one name was for a live stream and the other for a recording. Streaming is ambiguous: are you streaming live or a recording? Thankfully: we do not make such a differentiation any more. I find it somewhat interesting your stance allows for such a difference to be ignored, though. Perhaps, given time, you will moderate on the remainder of this terminology. After all it's a rather silly hill to die upon.
that's just it: they're the same thing
A youtube video and a podcast are the same thing...? This is the logic you want to go with? At this point I think it's pretty clear you're being irrational and I cannot reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. Have a nice day.
Your response is a common one I have seen time and again when they are trying to bow out while saving face. It's not subtle.
Simple question: can you listen to music on YouTube? Followup question: is it still a video if the content is only the song? What would you call it?
I sincerely hope you learned something today and will be less of a pedant online. Cheers.
So since I've never owned an iPod I've never truly listened to a podcast? Or does the person creating it have to own the iPod?
You never needed an iPod to listen to a podcast.
But it's not called droidcast. And Wikipedia says video podcasts exist so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
But it's not called droidcast.
Not sure what your point is? The technology and the name was popularized by Apple, not Google. If Google had done it, they could have just as well called it that and it would make no tangible difference.
And Wikipedia says video podcasts exist so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
Are you aware that Wikipedia is also user-editable? I don't care what Wikipedia says, use your brain.
Ask yourself what is a podcast? Why is it not called "radio"? Why is it not called "video"? Are all podcasts audio interviews? Apply some basic sense here. Watch the old videos from when Steve Jobs introduced it and listen to how he described it.
Are you aware Wikipedia has sources?
Then cite the sources, there's no reason to use Wikipedia as an unnecessary middleman.
Cites dictionaries
Once again I'm going to ask you to appeal to a sense of logic and reason instead of authority. These definitions make zero sense.
For example your second source says "downloaded over the internet" and since YouTube doesn't allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.
For example your second source says "downloaded over the internet" and since YouTube doesn't allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.
Everything on the internet is "downloaded" to your device, otherwise you can't view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.
Everything on the internet is "downloaded" to your device
No it is not. You're using wrong definitions to back up other wrong definitions.
"Download" means to make a copy and store it on your local device.
No, that's "Download to file" or "Download and save". Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just "downloading", doesn't mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.
The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.
No it is not.
You are not allowed to [...] access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders.
https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms
You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.
I do. You do not.
I'ma listen to respected sources, not some rando on Lemmy.
Okay, well then, according to your own "respected sources", this is also not a podcast, so go on with yourself.
...yes? What about it?
The apple podcast website has video podcasts.
No. It does not. It has podcasts. And some of those podcasts have an optional video component.
Adding video doesn't make it not a podcast. Not distributing it as a podcast makes it not a podcast.
Why call it a podcast? Digital audio interviews existed before the iPod. Just following your logic.
I guess my point it, why does it matter? We both know what it means. The language has accomplished its goal of communication.
You're not following my logic because you don't understand it. A podcast is not a "digital audio interview".
The core concept of what makes a podcast a podcast is the method audio files are distributed (RSS).
I guess my point it, why does it matter?
Because you're conflating an open distribution method with a proprietary one.
We both know what it means.
You obviously don't understand what it means.
The language has accomplished its goal of communication.
It didn't actually. If it had, I wouldn't have pulled up my podcast app to find and listen to this episode, only to find that it didn't exist.
It didn't actually. If it had, I wouldn't have pulled up my podcast app to find and listen to this episode, only to find that it didn't exist.
Ah. I get it. Pet peeves do be the worst sometimes.
Weren't they called videocasts at one point?
I don't really think that's a great word either. If you break down "podcast", pod = iPod, obvi, because that's how they were originally played back. "Cast" (as in "broadcast") suggests the method of distribution across the web (RSS).
You don't need to reinvent a new word for every type of video. They're just called videos. If you wanted to be more specific you could call it a "video interview", as I alluded to above.
Language evolves
And I would argue that language "evolution" is fucking stupid if all meaning is stripped from the words, as it has been here. The whole purpose of a language is to create a common understanding of communication. If that definition is eroded to the extent that there is no longer a common understanding, that is not evolution, that is devolution.
It also abused by many to intentionally conflate meanings to fit an agenda.