Spotify is comparing against other podcasts on its own platform. This is ignorant of podcasts on every other platform.

My mind went to that old guy on 60 minutes claiming smartphones weren't "phones" because they didn't look like the old phones he was used to. Who cares?

I also can't help but think the comment was mocking the way some HN comments completely ignore the subject of an article to instead argue semantics, but who knows.

Well in that case, JRE might just win best radio show awards as well, right?

That's a dumb comparison because:

1. Netflix programs are television shows—under both strict and loose definitions. You have to invent a bad definition of "television show" to exclude Netflix shows.

2. You're talking about Emmys and television shows and swapping the subject. You're one step removed.

3. You're making a category error. Same with people using "podcast" like it's a genre label (it isn't) or a specific (e.g. interview) format (isn't that, either).

On the other hand, the way I'm applying the word podcast captures its defining characteristic. It's not a characteristic that Spotify-exclusive media has. (Spotify could change the way their platform works, and then they would have podcasts—they could even keep some stuff behind a paywall. They won't, though.)

Similarly: "podcasts" that are only ever published by uploading them to the creators' YouTube channel also aren't podcasts. Again, "podcast" doesn't mean, "I'm talking to somebody and you can listen to it on your own time". (It's closer to "on your own device", but that's still not it.)

Thanks for being the one person disagreeing so far that does so in a way that's actually engaging. I disagree that "show" being too broad is relevant. How specific is "podcast" in the way that people are advocating for? It's so unspecific at this point that it doesn't mean anything. (It perhaps shouldn't even be called a "show", anyway. It's not a show. It's audio. If someone wanted to make that argument, I'd actually take their argument seriously.)

(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.

Not that Wikipedia is an authoritative source, but it does say this:

* 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.

This. Also, why such a strong reaction to the word "podcast"? imho it's a pretty loose term for "audio show" which it most certainly falls under.

> This is the headline of the article, by Variety, the preeminent entertainment industry outlet.

So? What are you saying?

> Do podcasts that could be played on iPods but started publishing in a newer audio format cease to be podcasts?

No. You can still play play it on an iPod if you save it in an alternative format the the iPod can play or if you install custom software.

The term "podcast" should be discontinued only if it stops meaning anything because e.g. people insist it means something that's the exact opposite of what it should mean. The word "algorithm" is approaching this level. We're going to have to come up with a new word because journalists ruined it.

That's not the same argument. Even if we're being generous, you're making the inverse argument. Except not, because "it's only a podcast if you use an iPod to listen to it" is not my argument. My argument is it's only a podcast if you can listen to it on an iPod—i.e. something you'd do because that's how you like to listen to things. A piece of audio that you can only listen to if someone installs a proprietary app on a limited set of devices and taps the play button is definitely not a podcast. A podcast that only has a single episode that was distributed as a FLAC copied to CD-R and never uploaded to the Web or anywhere else on the Internet and that only one person has ever listened to and when they did listen to it, it was using Amarok on a 2004 desktop from Gateway can absolutely call itself a podcast.

Don't care. They're wrong.