You wrote that twice, but it’s not clear to me what you’re advocating everyone should call it.
> show
Is “show” the suggestion? That’s quite broad as there are TV shows, broadway shows, dog shows… Is the argument that it’s a non-podcast talk show?
> ceased being a podcast
I dislike the trend of podcasts being exclusive to certain apps too, but neither Wikipedia nor the three dictionaries it sources its definition from say that a podcast has to be open.
(It can't mean the thing that many techies say podcasts are, i.e. that it has to be delivered over RSS, because podcasts predate the use of RSS for podcasts—so it would preclude all sorts of podcasts that e.g. wrapped up before RSS for podcasts became common or that just never decided to go the RSS route for whatever reason. It can't mean the thing that dictionary writers say it means because they all insist it has to involve the Internet. Both the Internet and RSS are good ideas for a podcast, but they're not strictly required.)
I'm not under any particular pressure to come up with an alternative. I can say, "it's not a podcast" the same as I can say, "it's not a goose". Call it a "streaming audio show" for all I care.
NB: this comment was written before the edit about Wikipedia and dictionaries, which I don't care to address here, but it's a paradoxical argument and a less serious one.
I believe it’s relevant if you want to convince others of your point. I have the feeling people will generally prefer a more precise and clear term (even if it is slightly wrong in the grand scheme of objectivity) than an overly broad one.
And if enough people use a “wrong” term for long enough, then it becomes correct by being added to the language (see “literally”).
> I can say, "it's not a podcast" the same as I can say, "it's not a goose".
Correct. But you also said (twice) “call it what it is”, so I think it was a reasonable expectation that you’d have an idea of what to call it. At the very least, by providing a fitting name you could get more people to agree to your point.
You didn't address my point. Anyone who believes being broad is a bad thing is making my own case for me, to me. You can either believe that it's okay for "podcast" to be a broad term, or you can believe that whether or not "show" is too broad is irrelevant. You can't have both.
> But you also said (twice) “call it what it is”
That was an error in editing.
I said it's fine to call it streaming. And which is something that people already say, except people refuse to label themselves that way when trying to present themselves as being serious, because "podcast" has cachet and "stream" invites people to laugh at you and say "OK, zoomer".
All podcasters are streamers. Not all streams are podcasts. Spotify's, for example, are not.
* A podcast is a program made available in digital format for download over the Internet.
* Podcasting is the preparation and distribution of audio files using RSS feeds to the devices of subscribed users.
* the content can be accessed using any computer or similar device that can play media files.
If we consider this to be the commonly accepted definition of a podcast, then how does the JRE fare?
1. JRE and other Spotify shows can only be streamed, not downloaded.
2. Spotify doesn't use RSS feeds to deliver audio files, rather a private API that powers their apps.
3. Spotify shows can not be accessed using any computer or similar device that can play media files, only those capable of running Spotify's own app.
So the JRE is 0/3 for meeting what I think it's fair to say is the general definition of a "podcast" as understood today.