Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
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.
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.
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podcast is technically incorrect: but thanks to language continuing to adapt to its environment… You’d actually just be out of date or misinformed.
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.
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?
Pretty subjective that what you’re advocating is “right” and not just simple opinion. It also is easily construed as semantics with little benefit to argue. But I admire your convictions. Good luck.
I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to have something called “video podcast” in the scenario where you have an actual podcast, which also happens to have a video recording available on the internet as well. Sometimes I like to watch the video versions of podcasts to see the facial expressions of the speakers. “video podcast” seems like a natural shortening of “video of a podcast”. I think the important part is that the content is first and foremost a podcast, where it is meant to be listened to. As soon as it stops being possible to listen to the podcast as audio only, for example if they start relying on visuals that can only be seen in the video, then it is no longer a podcast.
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
But it’s not called droidcast. And Wikipedia says video podcasts exist so I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at.
deleted by creator
Are you aware Wikipedia has sources? And that those sources disagree with you?
deleted by creator
Everything on the internet is “downloaded” to your device, otherwise you can’t view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.
deleted by creator
I’ma listen to respected sources, not some rando on Lemmy.
deleted by creator
Also https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/steve-jobs-at-the-d-all-things-digital-conference-video/id529997900
deleted by creator
The apple podcast website has video podcasts.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Considering your stance on this topic… why wouldn’t you? It’d be on brand.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
What exactly makes a podcast then?
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
Going to be pretty lonely on that hill.
deleted by creator
Pretty subjective that what you’re advocating is “right” and not just simple opinion. It also is easily construed as semantics with little benefit to argue. But I admire your convictions. Good luck.
deleted by creator
Again, good luck :)
If you aren’t consuming the content on a genuine Apple®️ iPod™️, then it is not a podcast.
Weren’t they called videocasts at one point?
deleted by creator
Language evolves
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to have something called “video podcast” in the scenario where you have an actual podcast, which also happens to have a video recording available on the internet as well. Sometimes I like to watch the video versions of podcasts to see the facial expressions of the speakers. “video podcast” seems like a natural shortening of “video of a podcast”. I think the important part is that the content is first and foremost a podcast, where it is meant to be listened to. As soon as it stops being possible to listen to the podcast as audio only, for example if they start relying on visuals that can only be seen in the video, then it is no longer a podcast.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Ah. I get it. Pet peeves do be the worst sometimes.