Podcasting…ain’t nuthin’ new here…
My friend Jim Widner makes the main contention that “podcasting” is a really cool new thing, where I maintain we’ve been doing it forever in Internet years. He also suggests it’s a great thing for distributing OTR, where I think that’s a serious mistake. If you haven’t read his posting in the Internet OTR Digest, please go off and do so now, since I’m not going to duplicate it here.
Jim’s example of what Jerry or Tom does, however, is precisely what they already do, although Jerry is using RealAudio (yeah, I know, yuck) instead of MP3. He still records a program digitally, and makes it available for stream or download via the web. When he plays something I want to hear, I simply download the RA file and play it through my linux box through the FM transmitter at my leasure instead of streaming it in pseudo-real time, or convert it to MP3 and play it in the car. When there isn’t something I’m interested in hearing, I don’t have to delete the file from the computer becuase it wasn’t automatically downloaded uselessly in the first place.
ANY MP3 file may be downloaded (RA files through a RealMedia server can’t directly, although we all know ways around that too, now don’t we?), and that includes ALL Shoutcast streams (I routinely do EXACTLY that for the very few NPR shows I’m still interested in hearing, although now that I think of it, none of those are actually produced by NPR, just distributed by them…but never mind that now), so none of that is new, either. The “push” part of podcasting, which is the supposed innovation, isn’t even really a “push,” but a “pull” at the client’s level - you just make it easy by using XML containers to hold the link data for the client aggrigator to auto-pull.
If I recorded my ramblings, pretending to be a “broadcaster” (anyone who’s heard my voice knows better) and posted it on my website with a click-to-download link, that wouldn’t be “podcasting,” but it would be the same bloody thing; if I added an RSS feed which forced your machine to download it whether you were interested in the spacific show’s topic or not, suddenly it would become “podcasting” and achieve “legitimacy” in Jim’s eyes. And you wonder why I look on this so skeptacally?
But then, I was doing a “blog” (The News Pages) for years before the word “blog” was coined…there was no XML container holding the entries, but other than that the concept was identical. I linked to other webpages I found interesting with caustic comments of my own attached. Now I do the same thing and syndicate an RSS feed, and suddenly I’m a “blogger.” (But then, I still don’t syndicate all of the content, only a brief capsule summary, which is how I believe it should be done. Why waste your time and my bandwidth transfering some huge missive to your computer you may not want to read anyway? Better the reader make the decision to read or not to read on his/her own.)
And all this is great for “original” content, but makes no sense whatsoever that I can see for OTR, since you can easily download shows without subscribing to XML feeds, and why in the world would I want the computer (actually, the human syndicator) deciding what shows were going to end up in my computer or player anyway? I am actually a little frightened at how easy it is for Jim to add someone else’s shows to his “feed” - at http://www.otr.com/otrrss.xml he is “feeding” http://www.kingsparkband.org/peg_lynch_margaret_hamilton.mp3 and other shows not on his server - this means that in this example kingsparkband.org is paying for the bandwidth of the automated downloads set up by Jim’s “podcast” feed. This seems a little…dangerous to me; anyone can “syndicate” anyone else’s bandwidth without asking for permission. This isn’t like a blog trackback, where the bandwidth is negligible (under a kilobyte) - this is a 53.3MB file that someone else pays to serve. Doesn’t matter if, when it gets there the person subscribed to Jim’s feed decides he doesn’t want it and trashes it…the downoad’s already been performed, so teh site owner needs to pay for it out of their quota. (FWIW, this particular site has already run over its quota at least once, locking the site from providing additoinal downloads.)
Sure, Jim seems understandably excited that he can, “hear [any podcasted show] at [his] leisure where ever [he] wanted,” and that’s great - but it is exactly what he can do with any MP3 file he downloads and loads into his iPod (or other MP3 solid-state player, or burns to a CD-RW for playing in an MP3 player, or plays through his Palm, or…) whether through an XML container, USENET posting, or website click. I’m glad he thinks “podcasting” is wonderful (it would be boring if we all liked the same things), but he can’t argue there’s d*mned little difference between “subscribing” to an RSS feed of an NPR program and clicking a “download” link to download the same show - except for the whiz-bang new term which convinces us we’re on the “cutting edge,” and the sudden inability to decide for ourselves what gets downloaded into our device. (And although NPR may be “experimenting” with it, I promise you there won’t be anything of value distributed that way, or the locals would realize how completely unnecessary they really are other than to foot the bills.)
My objection is not to the information made available in this fashion, it’s to the conceit that this is a “new thing.” As one who routinely listened to Internet Talk Radio programming in .AU format over ten years ago downloading the shows over a 22.8 dialup connection, (I still have flashbacks to piecing together the UUEncoded MCI Mail letters from the FTP-to-Email system I used to avoid the huge $6/hour CompuServe charges to pull the files) the idea of people producing “radio shows” and distributing the audio files on the Internet so they could be listened to elsewhere isn’t some amazing revelation, it’s more of a big yawn and a, “Yeah? So?” Trust me, there isn’t anything out there today being “podcasted” that can hold a candle to ITR’s Geek of the Week.
Sorry, I’ll shut up now It’s just that I’ve spent so much time on the Internet watching all these things pretentiously come and go…anyone remember HotSauce?
December 13th, 2004 at 8:13 am
Podcasting - if it includes someone’s babbling tied to a show I want to hear is not a step forward to me. If the babble contains good solid background information, I might want that, but not necessarily “tied” to the program. A separate “side” file might be nice, but leave the original in tact.
December 13th, 2004 at 12:16 pm
Podcasting is indeed new. The new part is that the content “just shows up” on your portable music player. The podcatcher “subscribes” to the program feeds they want to have show up on their player automatically. If you don’t want that content, you delete your subscription. Compare this to a subscription to Time magazine. It just shows up in your mailbox, and you read it. Podcasts just show up if the listener finds the content interesting. Our job as podcasters is to create a program that people find compelling enough to subscribe to. At first, that was a very small number of podcasters. Now there are over 1000 people assembling a show. Some will stop, others will join. For a representative sample, see http://www.podcastbunker.com, where you can sample 30 second segments to see if it is interesting enough to subscribe. Then, get an RSS Enclosure capable feed reader like iPodder or Doppler.
As far as your complaint about taking someone else’s bandwidth, that is a separate issue. It needs to be addressed between the parties involved. Podcasting takes a lot of bandwidth. But don’t dismiss the methodology until you’ve filled up a portable player with recent podcasts and gone for a walk in the woods. Your heart, your eyes, and your carpal tunnel will thank you.
Try mine at http://ripnread.blogspot.com with a feed at http://feeds.feedburner.com/ripnread
Charlie
I’m not dismissing the methodology. I’m dismissing the “newness” of it. As I noted, ITR was doing the same thing before there were portable devices. That it “just shows up” implies the methodology of getting the file into the player is more important than the content of the file itself. XML containers ain’t enough to make this “new.”
As to “trying [yours],” I doubt I will (although I hope others with more time to spend on unknowns will), since I have no idea what it’s about. And here’s the problem…you say in effect, “listen to me because the technology is whiz-bang-NEW!” where I say, “why should I spend the time listening to something with no description when I can listen to “Here and Now” on XMPR, or downloaded OTR I’m interested in, or…or…
You miss one more point; I don’t want to “subscribe” to anything. If I think today’s digital file is interesting, I’ll download it. But why in the world would I waste the time, bandwidth, and energy downloading everything you have to say? That’s like my telling you you MUST read everything I write…but then, that’s why my RSS feed of this blog is minimalist…I don’t want to waste your time forcing you to receive information you aren’t interested in. Find one you do want to read, a click will get you there.
I just don’t buy that it’s “new” simply because it auto-downloads. –cfs3
December 13th, 2004 at 3:45 pm
I don’t know what the heck you are talking about.
Neither do I, most of the time. ;) –cfs3
December 13th, 2004 at 6:04 pm
OK, OK. A couple of things out of the way first.
1) Yes, I know that the essential concept of “pulling” down an mp3 file to my computer has been around since mp3’s have been around.
2) I personally never said doing so was a new thing.
What I quoted from (and described in the page referred to) is that the idea of podcasting is a new CONCEPT. Let me elaborate. RSS has not been around nearly as long as the World Wide Web - the idea of a news aggregator allowing me to better organize what I want to read on the WWW is an example of a new CONCEPT. The subject matter has been around for a long time. My ability to better organize it has not.
mp3 downloading has been around a long time. Regular otr mp3’s have been a part of that. You are right that downloading the data gives me a better ability to pick and choose. But that is not what podcasting is about and I admit that my first lame attempt to tie OTR to the concept was not very good. My tying the example to the types of OTR Shows we hear on the radio such as a Chuck Schaden or a Walden Hughes, etc. is closer to where I think OTR and Podcasting come together.
Quickly, I again disagree with you that “podcasting” is not new. We are talking different ideas here. What you do is select a file and it is “pushed” down to you. What RSS has allowed is for me to select particular “feeds” offering content which I think might be interesting. I subscribe to the feed and my aggregator “pulls” it to my computer everytime new data appears (then automatically pushes it to my ipod, etc). I do nothing to “push” it. The Wikpedia I quoted does a poor job of explaining it. Broadcasting and webcasting is different. It casts its data by centrally pushing it out to me whereas the mechanism of “podcasting” is that data is cast by the mechanism of me “pulling” it when my aggregator is scheduled to get it. Thus it is not schedule bound as broadcasting is. On my PC (I also have a Mac), I will sometimes use a program called TotalRecorder - a sort of Tivo for radio. But I have to set it to schedule to record when the BBC is specifically broadcasting a program (if it is not on a “Listen Again” site). This is what you experience with any broadcasting and a video recorder, etc. Instead, what I do with “podcasting” is say that I want to grab (or pull) a file whenever I want to get it. The only thing that ties me down to the latest data (or podcast) is that it won’t be able to pull it until it is posted.
Now with mp3 otr files, you are right, it is an unnecessary step. And my Terry and the Pirates example is a poor example. At the risk of being redundant, let’s try this scenario: Chuck Schaden no longer broadcasts over radio (or even if he does) he records his show into an mp3 file and places it enclosed within RSS descriptors. Everytime he does a show, he sets it up that way. Now YOU have to wait until it is available and make a manual effort to go out and download the file (if you think you like it) and either listen on your computer or move it to a portable device and listen to it. Now I, on the other hand originally subscribed to Chuck’s feed because I want to always have an opportunity to listen to his latest show. My aggregator runs constantly in the background “listening” for when the next show is published. When it appears, it “pulls” it down to my computer and uploads it to my iPod (if connected). If I decide I don’t like that edition, I can get rid of it. If I like it, it is an mp3 and I can store it. But it only pulls the latest everytime when it is available without any intervention from me.
This is the “podcasting” concept and despite what you think - it is new because the descriptors allowing for this within RSS only arrived with version 2.0.
Now let’s stretch the technology. I turnaround and invent a special iPod that will do all of this “pulling” directly to my iPod without the need of my computer. The subscription to the feed, the wireless aspect (or connection to a wired connector but wireless will be the way to go for this concept) and a new addition called “opml” will show me program notes while I listen to the “podcast.” This is all new and it is coming (some of it is here).
Sorry to be so long winded, but believe it or not, this will have an impact on the future of radio. I can see (just as the cable channels are beginning to do) this information on demand affecting radio very soon. Sadly, I will miss the old concepts, but if I want to move forward, I have to accept it.
OTR related podcasts can be a part of that. We just need to figure out how and where it will fit in.
Correction, guy; a file is not “pushed” at you, your aggrigator pulls it. And your aggrigator does not constantly monitor the feed…if it did, you’d be firewalled off for DOS attacks. It checks at a user-set interval (shouldn’t be more often than every few hours, but I know people will be stupid and set it every few minutes just as I’ve had to firewall off a few people for checking this blog’s RSS feed too d*mned often). I’m going to ignore most of the rest, since it’s not much different than what you’ve been saying all along, and you have yet to convince me. Maybe the problem is, I understand the underlying technologies better than you do, and so know how terrifically unimpressive it is. Or maybe you’re just so impressed by your iPod that anything attached to it gets you excited. Me, I stopped being Wow-ed by audio files piecing together UUEncoded parts on a PowerMac 145 and carrying them with me so I could listen to the “National Press Club” while working on-site at clients. It was heavier than an iPod, but this was back in 1994 or so…
Every week, a shell script I wrote downloads the most recent MP3 of “On the Media.” Been doing that for, I dunno, maybe a year or a little less (wishing all along they’d name their files YYYYMMDD instead of MMDDYY). They don’t need some nifty new termonology for posting MP3 files, and I don’t need any to pull the file into the computer. “Podcasting” just alows the technologically ignorant to do the same thing, with vastly inferior content (so far, in my research, I’ve discovered a whole lot of people speaking their blogs, when I wouldn’t bother reading them in the first place - I don’t know about you, but I read a whole lot faster than anyone can speak). Is that a good thing that you don’t need to be a programmer to download files automatically? Yep. Is it a new thing? Of course it isn’t. –cfs3
December 18th, 2004 at 7:32 pm
Check this link out: http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?section=cm&id=1831
(*shrug) Again, the content is not relevant to the discussion. Downloading MP3s isn’t a new thing, nor is automating the download.
You know, I think I understand why I’m so blase about the whole thing while others seem to think this is the second coming of audio or something. I don’t have the time to listen to what I really want to hear, let alone all the other junk floating around the Internet. Even though I’m home most of the day, I’m three days’ behind on “As It Happens,” I missed the Diane Rehm week-in-review show, still haven’t heard the “On the Media” my audio computer downloaded (”We don’t need no stinkin’ RSS feed”), and I haven’t heard any OTR in three or four days. I am determined to hear “The Bob Edwards Show” every weekday, but it takes at least one repeat and sometimes two for me to even hear all of that, what with my concentration being broken by working and such!
Where the hell do you non-independently-wealthy people find enough time to spend listening to all this stuff? –cfs3