Of course it's okay for languages to evolve, but here's how you're missing the point:
Imagine that shortly after the turn of the century, Adobe created a proprietary platform for delivering internet content and called it the "web". Viewers must use Adobe Web Reader to use Adobe "web pages", which are DRM-protected PDF files delivered using proprietary protocols. Adobe has done deals with several hundred popular sites to turn off their standards-based websites and deliver Adobe websites exclusively.
This is what Spotify and others are doing, and nobody cares. Apple is effectively the last media giant left holding the flag for standards-based podcasting, but how long do we think that will last?
What I just love is when people use this excuse to justify "borrowing" a clearly defined technical term, using it incorrectly, and then insisting that their incorrect usage of that term is entirely valid because "language and meaning change over time."
(Not saying you're one of those people at all but that is one of the most frequent uses of that phrase that I tend to experience from other people.)
This doesn't seem particularly closely related to the discussion. The meaning of "podcast" hasn't changed. Instead, the question is "why bother distinguishing podcasts from other mp3 files that you also download off the internet?". If someone records an album and puts it up for sale online, how is that not a "podcast"?
Imagine that shortly after the turn of the century, Adobe created a proprietary platform for delivering internet content and called it the "web". Viewers must use Adobe Web Reader to use Adobe "web pages", which are DRM-protected PDF files delivered using proprietary protocols. Adobe has done deals with several hundred popular sites to turn off their standards-based websites and deliver Adobe websites exclusively.
This is what Spotify and others are doing, and nobody cares. Apple is effectively the last media giant left holding the flag for standards-based podcasting, but how long do we think that will last?