On Podcasting

2006-08-14T23:07:00Z

Podcasts are very different from blogs, even though both are generally labeled as user generated content,

Consuming information from podcasts can take longer than from blogs. As Don Dodge points out in The problem with podcasts and web video, "I can easily plow through 100 blog posts in an hour or so. That is just not possible with audio or video."

This is especially true when trying to perform target-oriented research. Trying to extract facts or structured information from podcasts is tedious, and totally ineffective. It is much more effective to do so on the written-word web (though I would be cautious about relying heavily on blogs as a factual information source, for separating fact from opinion and fiction can be hindering).

But venue should also be considered. It is much easier to consume podcasts than blogs while excersing or commuting, especially when you happen to be doing the driving. I like to think of podcasts as the TiVo or VOD of user generated radio, and as such it shouldn't be compared to written blogs, but should really be looked at in light of the alternatives at that venue and time. To me, podcasts are often more interesting than broadcast radio – I can listen to my favorite tech show at my convenience instead of what happens to be on the air at that moment in time. Podcasts are also more lively and updated than most audio books, as they are timely and typically represent a wider spectrum of opinions and voices.

However, the real revolution podcasting brings is the ability to virtually attend conferences and events that one wouldn't otherwise. Listen to keynotes at TIEcon or TED from the (dis)comfort of the treadmill (heck –do both TIEcon west AND east). Hear tech entrepreneurs deliver their presentations at conferences across the globe, and form an opinion about their vision based not only on the content, but also on the drive, passion and sincerity as projected in the tone and quality of their voice. These are qualities that go beyond the written word and can only be experienced via the spoken word, be it audio or video.

Discovering content and finding specific information is difficult with podcasts. There's Podzinger (based on BBN technology) that transcripts podcasts, and lets users search the transcripts and listen in, right from the point where the searched keyword was mentioned. Other companies let users create their own channel, essentially an aggregate of podcasts, letting other users listen to a pre-selected batch of shows on similar topics of interest that cater to similar tastes. But these are no match for discovering and extracting information from the written web. Also, getting to the gist of a podcast discussion takes longer than looking at a search results page and clicking away to the desired information.

I also agree with Don that podcasting will be much less pervasive than blogging (I disagree on video though: I think the current numbers already show scale, and IMO we are now just scratching the surface).

And that is actually the good thing about podcasting. This lower pervasiveness, and the fact that there is an inherent barrier to content authoring and creation will actually make the podcast long tail significantly shorter than that of blogs. Unlike blogging, podcasting is not 'generatable' anytime/anywhere. The time, effort, and somewhat of an investment required to create a podcast will make the people who are less passionate about it much less persistent, and hence much less likely to go beyond initial experimentation. This shorter long tail will offer less noise (a smaller, more 'pro'esque variety of shows), while retaining the long tail characteristics (shows targeted at small niche audiences not available through broadcast/digital radio). And this is the agent that compensates for the limitations of the format.

Just my two cents on podcasting.

What's Wrong with Web 2.0

2006-05-04T20:26:00Z

I originally posted this under my secret alias...

There's been much discussion about Web 2.0, most of it in the form of heated, passion filled debate. Not unlike the classic Yankees vs Red Sox prose, with the predictable outcome of no winners (nor losers...), and not much reasoning behind any of its arguments, but a lot of emotions arrising from related associations - group identity, pride, taking comfort in the familiarity of the past.

So what IS wrong with Web 2.0?
Web 2.0 is an oxymoron.
I say this for several reasons:
First: Most companies that classify themselves as "web 2.0" are so similar to the "Web 1.0" crop of companies circa 1998, 1999, and 2000 that you wouldn't be able to tell the 1.0 from the 2.0 if we switched the company names and the copyright notice at the bottom of their sites/services/products/plans. In fact you might think in many cases that the 1.0 companies are 2.0 because they tend to be more populated with user focused benefit buzzwords ("uniquity", "stickiness") rather than pseudo technological terms ("ajax").

The complimentary argument holds water as well: most of the new internet companies that typically do not classify themselves as "Web 2.0" tend to be more mature, and advanced from a business standpoint, than those of the past, and in that respect could be coined as the next generation of web companies.

Second: It is also true, however, that the business models for internet services companies have not really changed. Advertising income is the basis for most revenue streams of web companies, and just like before: most such revenues derive from a revenue sharing plan with a big advertising budget aggregator that manages the ad placement/pricing/inventory processes and pays real estate rent to the traffic owners, who are in fact Value Added Resellers of the uber-ad-agency.

In this respect "Web 2.0" is an oxymoron since not much has changed. Surely textual ads based on content context and search terms have grown in popularity, and replaced in a lot of cases the rich media "punch the monkey" banners, scrapers, and what have we. But Bill Gross' GoTo.com (read "Yahoo Marketing Services") has been making revenues on this very model in 1998 and 1999. So what is the logical justification for coining the term "Web 2.0" around it? Is it simply the mix of textual ads versus media ads? Is it the change in the proportion of pay per click ads to CPM ads (both models were available in 1996 and are available in 2006)?

Is this change comparable to what we might call the black and white TV 1.0 to the color TV 2.0? Can we compare it to the radical shift in information consumption and availability that was brought about by the cable industry offering twentyfold viewing options than the state of television at the time when three nationals and some local stations offered their slew of programming?

Of course not. Flickr is a great idea, offering one of the nicest available photo browsing experiences. Tagging, interestingness, and beautiful UI all contribute to the great experience it offers. Its integration into Yahoo makes it even more valuable. And the community infrastructure it lays around the democratic topics created by users are all fabulous. It is much nicer than Yahoo Photos was, to be sure. But, to stick to the TV comparison, it is like comparing Seinfeld to Three's Company. Both sitcoms. One is, arguably, more entertaining, created a huge pseudo cult excerpt mumbling following (the other was vastly successful at the time as well), and the the creators' and actors' financial rewards were much greater. But was TV as a whole transformed to become TV 2.0 due to Seinfeld? I really don't think so.

Web 2.0, the term, is the child of the mistreated turn of the century internet industry. Mistreated because it was first overinflated and then over deflated.
In fact, founding an internet company in the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 was politically incorrect. Almost like walking around with a polyester suit.
This created a true need for legitimacy for the people behind newly budding internet companies.
But it is the very overinflation and obsession with classification that creates the inevitable over deflation that follows.

Now, as people are once again starting to think and converse in loosely coined terms, the inflation factor is starting to show again. The inflation, thus far, has been more applicable to concepts and terms than to actual market valuation (at least of private companies acquired).

So, the recent advances in web usability and applications are great, the new wave of social applications are exciting and useful, and innovation is blossoming once again.

So what is wrong with Web 2.0? Nothing but the term itself.

Barak Shein

On Podcasting

What's Wrong with Web 2.0