Talk:List of podcast clients/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Why is a list of other Podcatcher Clients missing?? Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanFoerserer~enwiki (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Podcatchers

A comparison of the major podcatchers out there would definitely be a good idea. So I added the title to encourage this. Hope this is OK.

A few of the things that should be listed are:

• Cost
• Licence (GPL etc)
  • For open-source, language/platform of development
• Platform/OS
• Only podcatcher (or also media player etc... )
• Features:
  • Grouping of feeds (drag/drop feeds into podcast 'genres' that I define, like Sports, Business etc...)
  • Lists/Organises based on size (to control those GB of downloads that you don't need - I define the settings)
  • Tells you when a feed has failed and retries or something (basically something iTunes doesn't do unless manually)
  • expand/collapse all function for feed lists (something iTunes doesn't have)
  • Time-stretching support (allow playing at different speeds) -- I would really like to see a page with a "list of time stretching podcatchers"

As you can see....this is just a start. I was looking here in the hope of finding something with the features above, as I am sick of iTunes limitations. Thanks :-) --Phillip Fung 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge to podcasting

I support the merge. There isn't much to say except that "podcasts can be downloaded using podcatchers". Maybe a mention of a few "popular" podcatchers. But I also support the "Comparison of podcatchers" article to hide away the tiny details about the podcatchers that 99% of the audience don't give a damn about.
+Mwtoews 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge to podcasting

They are two different subjects, one is a software program, the other is a new means of communication. They are complimentary, but not exclusive. I think the basic concept of podcasting is making audio content freely available for download, which in itself does not require a podcatcher. Also, some podcatchers are capable of receiving other content such as newsfeeds or text.

It is time consuming trying to find a list of podcatchers through google because currently the results it returns with only have a few listed. An article about podcatchers can list all the programs available(if for no other reason than its historical value), and give details on how podcatchers work, from xml to the main differences between various podcatchers. Without a comprehensive list to reference, most people would not be able to name more than a few podcatchers, and by default be limited to using those few.

leave the article alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.217.171.51 (talk • contribs) .

Two things, one is that Podcasting will likely move to Podcast. Two, the list of applications was merged to Podcasting, but was removed per the discussion at Talk:Podcasting#List of Applications. So, the only thing that this article is good for, the list of applications, isn't something we should be including in Wikipedia like this anyways.-- Ned Scott 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Podcatcher is a seperate topic

The article Podcatcher contains information that cannot be found anywhere else in Wikipedia. By redirecting different articles to a related article, while not adding any of the information contained in those articles, you are making it much more difficult, and creating alot more work for people who are trying to find information about the topic they were looking for.

This article was created, and edited, and recreated, because it contains information about a subject that many people are interested in.

as to-

but was removed per the discussion:

== List of Applications ==

I deleted the table of applications. Now, such a list might be somewhat useful, but it's hard to keep current and there are so many podcast applications these days. Also, such lists might attract advertising links to non-notable products. I don't feel strongly about this either way, but my main argument is that the need for currency of information and editorial vetting makes such a table more suitable for a publication in the WP:RS category than in the encyclopedia that everyone can edit; or perhaps in a software directory. Can't we supply links to such sites rather than having to update the information ourselves?--GunnarRene 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: Sounds good to me. It's a good example of material that was relevant, due to novelty, when podcasting was new but is now so routine as to not be relevant. - DavidWBrooks 00:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) : I agree. I had added it due to the merge and redirect from Podcatcher, but have no attachment to the list :) -- Ned Scott 06:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC) : There was still a "See also: Podcatcher" listing, which looped back to the podcasting page. I commented it out, but it probably should be deleted if this discussion doesn't shift directions. The History of podcasting page still has references to early podcatching programs, which seems appropriate. So I added a parenthetical cross-ref in the Mechanics section, including an attempt to discourage rebuilding a list.Bstepno 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

this looks like a suggestion that was backed up by three people in an obscure post that would only have been noticable for a couple of days, not really a discussion, and not justifing of removing an article.

It's a good example of material that was relevant, due to novelty, when podcasting was new but is now so routine as to not be relevant

the information is relevant, not because it's novel, but because it is relevant to anyone learning about podcatchers.

the article does need to be developed, but thats difficult for the wiki community to do when it keeps being removed.

People interested in podcasting need information about podcatchers that the podcast article does not provide.

Information about podcatchers, how the programs work, what programs are out there, etc, is very relevant, espescially now that more and more people are learning about and becoming interested in podcasting. The first step to getting involved with podcasts is to find out how to access them. Now, aside from downloading an mp3 directly from a website, which depending on your definition may or may not be consider a podcast, you need a podcatcher in order to download a podcast.

There are differences between podcatchers, some are browser-based, some are downloadable applications, some require a subscription, or that you accept cookies, some have different features, some are free, others you have to pay for, etc.

By not having a comprehensive resource that provides the basic information about a subject that is very popular, you've left a large gap in the information that shouldn't be there.

Many of the specific podcatcher programs already have their own articles, but unless you already know the names of those programs the articles won't do you any good because you can't find them.

Wikipedia has millions of users, so when one person decides to remove an article that is informative and useful, because they don't feel it is relevant, it creates much more work and frustration for the majority of others trying to educate themselves about the topic.

Most people who are redirected from the subject they typed in don't think to check the redirect link, and then that pages history, so they would not know that an article ever existed. This is why there is not a greater amount of objection to the page being removed.

Stop redirecting the page

as it is there is only one person who is doing so

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dial-up readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.

This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. (note this)

A "See also" section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable

Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates Renominations and recurring candidates

Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination.

Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.

Yes, I know all about those guidelines, I've read them. I've given valid reasons to not make this a separate article, you've given unproven hypothetical speculation. For one, this article is one thing and one thing only, a list of MP3 clients that can subscribe to podcasts. Here was the original rational for removing the list of applications:

I deleted the table of applications. Now, such a list might be somewhat useful, but it's hard to keep current and there are so many podcast applications these days. Also, such lists might attract advertising links to non-notable products. I don't feel strongly about this either way, but my main argument is that the need for currency of information and editorial vetting makes such a table more suitable for a publication in the WP:RS category than in the encyclopedia that everyone can edit; or perhaps in a software directory. Can't we supply links to such sites rather than having to update the information ourselves?--GunnarRene 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)'

this is why wikipedia is what it is, it is created and maintained by its users, not an editorial staff who are responsible for its content, it doesn't fall on a single user to manage or keep up to date the material of an article, as links are found not to be relevant, or are no longer functional they are removed. There is no burden here because it doesn't matter if there is a less than perfect article, if it does matter to someone then they change it by making the article better.

• How do we know what applications are notable? Do we have reliable sources on these applications? Are there even notable differences between the applications?

this is the point in providing information about the applications, you can't know whether an application is notable, or what the differences are between them unless you know something about them. And yes, there are many differences between them, as i listed in my previous post.

• Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise.

providing information about a subject, even a software program, isn't done in order to advertise, but to educate people about material that is relevant to them. Wikipedia has articles on Xbox and iTunes, along with thousands of other articles, that again aren't there to advertise but to inform.

• WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory.
• How podcasting works is already a topic covered in Podcasting#Mechanics. The list of applications does not aid in one's understanding in how it works.
• Podcasting is far from a large article, and does not warrant an article split.

2 things, 1, the "how" it works does need to be developed, along with the development of the program, its prediccesors, etc.

and 2, it's not an article split, it was already a seperate article that you decided to erase, before this, while i had not done anything to develope the article, i did use it very often, and found it useful.

Splitting information between articles prematurely makes finding information on Wikipedia more difficult for both readers and editors. An topic getting its own article or not is not an indication of importance nor does it necessarily increase exposure (far more likely in this case the information would be less exposed on a separate article).I suggest that you discuss on Talk:Podcasting the reasons you wish to include a list of applications and see if the editors there think it's a good idea.

I don't agree, espescially if you already have a fairly developed main article, let alone a subject heading that would exist whether there was seperate article or not. Many articles have content that overlaps with other articles, with each article having it's own main focus. A See also section, or links within the article is a great way to branch off from that article into interconnected subjects, material that would be too in depth to go into in the main article, or material that is relevant to the subject that doesn't exist anywhere else.

If you really feel this topic is important enough then write something more than a list of applications. Start it as a section in Podcasting and actually show us that the topic is worthy of a split. The topic has a lot better chance at expanding under Podcasting than it does as it's own article, anyways. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the definition for these terms are still being developed.

What makes podcasting "podcasting" is that it uses a podcatcher program, by that definition the podcatcher is really the defining mechanism.

I prefer the philosophical view of podcasting which is along the lines of open-source, or wikipedia. You're bypassing the established means of communication, no censorship(unfortunatly not in all podcatcher applications), no centralised distribution(again becoming a problem with podcatchers), no competion for a time-slot, no political obligations(time-warner, fox news), no legal restrictions(fcc), no competion(a show can be terrible, but as long as people are willing to produce it, and pay to have it hosted, it will be there), and the majority of the content is freely available.

But this has been available for years, anyone could post a pdf or mp3 file on their website free for people to download. It's only now that it is catching on as "podcasting", so the role of the podcatcher program is much more significant.

Articles don't need to come out fully formed from the start, and while my experience has show the majority of the work done on an article is attributable to a few people, it still is available to be developed by anyone.

People used to be able to create a topic that they were interested in, but didn't know very much about, write a brief paragraph, and then, contributing ocasionally, watch as the article grows and develops. Now if an article isn't complete or perfect to start with, it is deleted instead of contributed too.

There are too many people who like to remove content rather than to add or improve upon it.

My 2 main points are this:

• 1. Podcatcher is a subject in and of itself.
• 2. While the article does need major developement, a list of podcatcher applications does warrant a place in wikipedia.

User:Daemion

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move to List of Podcatchers. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Podcatcher → List of Podcatchers — There has been controversy as to whether Podcatchers deserve their own article as show on the Talk page of this article. Users effectively deleted it by replacing the entire article with a redirect. The main content of the article is a list of podcatchers. If the name were changed, there wouldn't be an argument that the info doesn't belong, because it would be in the correct type of page. The only reason I couldn't do this myself is that the page already exists as a redirect. --The Talking Sock talk contribs 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Malicious link in 'see also'

Under 'See Also' there is a list of external sites for various podcatchers. The link for nimiq points to a potentially harmful site.

Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for nimiq.nl

What is the current listing status for nimiq.nl?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 6 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 6 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-08-28, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-08-10.

Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including iexam.info/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS21844 (THEPLANET).

I tried to edit the 'see also' section to break the link until this could be resolved, however I was unable to. Someone more familiar with wiki scripting should do that immediately.

Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

gpodder

gpodder is now also for Windows avaible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.2.147.77 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing?

How did downcast get left off your list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.173.199 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Feedbooks

I can't seem to find the download for this client 89.151.215.177 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:Vermin

Link to Vermin goes to a wrong page, and looking at the disambiguation page, the page for Vermin as media player does not exist yet. I thought I would note that here so that someone familiar with the naming conventions would create an appropriate page and link. Thanks. Tomos (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

VLC is not a podcatcher

VLC media player is (was?) a pure media player, not a podcaster application (no way to input or use RSS feed, etc.)

I don't think it should be listed here.

--Mortense (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

little-known, perhaps, but in fact VLC includes a podcast subscription feature, see here:

https://www.vlchelp.com/how-subscribe-podcasts-vlc-media-player/

--Garbanzito (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Last release date

I went and added in last release date. I believe it is worthwhile to know if it hasn't updated in 13 years (which some of them haven't). Incidentally, this allegedly is a list of all "noteworthy" podcatchers. Is it really noteworthy if it has not been updated in 13 years and the last OS it was compatible with has been discontinued? (winXP) Taltamir (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary. If something has received enough coverage to be considered notable (i.e. satisfy these criteria), updating isn't really a factor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorting doesn't work

The last release date sorting doesn't work, as it's based on the month and doesn't take the year into account: apps released September 2019 and September 1988 are grouped together, so that doesn't really help users. Maybe sort option should be removed for that column (if possible) until/unless that issue is fixed? Glotzbach (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Glotzbach:, thank you for noticing this. Sorting such special date columns is possible using enforced hidden sort values (see for example: List of Teachers' Days), but it is also a huge pain. I have disabled the erroneous function for now, as it seems relatively pointless anyway (the "age" of each podcast is already calculated for each row). Better solutions and further tweaks are welcome of course. GermanJoe (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Poddr

There is a new multiplatform desktop podcatcher called Poddr (available on Windows, Mac and Linux)

I think some others started as well. Worth adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.136.122 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Removals

I am getting rid of the below, reasons next to each entry:

• Banshee - discontinued, repository archived. --Yupyuphello (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Feedbooks - this is an ebook business, has no place here.
• Juice - discontinued.
• Media Go - discontinued.
• Miro - discontinued.
• NewsFire - discontinued.
• PodWalk - discontinued, website and downloads missing.
• Radio UserLand - discontinued.
• Spotify - this is not a podcatcher, but a hosting service with podcast-like playlists - you can't add podcasts through RSS/Atom, so it doesn't fit.
• Zune - discontinued.

The list should include modern noteworthy podcatchers that are still receiving updates - notable discontinued podcatchers can be listed in a separate list underneath, if anybody wishes to do so. All of the removed discontinued podcatchers can be replaced with forks that are still getting updates, if they're under an open source license. For proprietary ones, maybe successors by the same company or original authors, if there are any. Please do not revert and instead feel free to actually talk here, just ping me. --Yupyuphello (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

objection to removal of Radio Userland:

i note the description of the list on the article page: "The following is a list of noteworthy podcatchers or software with podcatching capability"; i feel Radio Userland is noteworthy and thus deserving to remain in the list, at least as long as the list claims to include noteworthy podcatchers; my reasoning:

1. Radio Userland is a product that was released by one of the originators of podcasting, and i believe was the first RSS tool to support enclosures (the feature that permits podcasting); on that basis i would call it very noteworthy
2. Radio Userland is still available for download (though it may require a legacy environment to run), and thus may be a meaningful object of study in the history of podcasting

Garbanzito (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

support this removal. If an app does not support subscribing to podcast feeds, it is not a podcatcher. Seems someone reversed your change at some point erroneously. I have amended this. --Sauronjim (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)