There’ve been a couple of thoughtful commentaries of podcasting as a technology in the past few days that captured my feelings on the technology nicely. The best of these was Tim Bray’s take here:
Im pretty sure that when the subject is technology, Id rather read about it than hear about it. One reason is the interactivity.
casting Isnt Conversing
Any activity with casting in the name suggests one-to-many, and indeed, I think podcasting is way less interactive than conventional blogging. The reason is that when Im reading a blog, Im 100% engaged and Im sitting at a keyboard. If something strikes a chord, its a matter of seconds to write in response; either one-on-one to the author, or to the author and the world via ongoing.
Now, for listening to music, the interactivity deficit isnt a problem. But blogging is better than conventional publishing precisely because, at an essential level, its two-way.
I agree pretty much entirely with that assessment. So does Jeremy Zawodny:
I was reading Tim Bray’s take on Podcasting a few minutes ago and realized that he’s done a good job of saying what I’ve been trying to figure out how to say for a while now.
Jeremy’s post, however, drew the following comment from Russ Beattie:
I think both you and Tim are mistaking *content* for the *technology*. It’s the technology that’s revolutionary, but you may not see it unless you’ve found the right content. Honestly, “podcasting” as it is now is nothing more than time-shifted spoken-audio content, which varies in quality considerably. But once you get the right content and use the technology in the right context (while running, walking or commuting) the light suddenly switches on and you realize how valueable it is. That’s the epiphany I’ve had lately. Tim is trying to apply the rules and concepts of blogging to podcasting and it doesn’t compute.
I don’t agree with that. Forget the content question – like any new medium, it hasn’t hit its stride yet, and I haven’t seen anyone condemn it for that. Some people find Adam Curry appealing, some don’t. But I don’t think anyone – Tim included – is judging the technology by Adam’s show.
Looking at the technology, I see it delivering two basic types of content: some that requires my attention (i.e. talk shows, etc), and some that doesn’t (music). Podcasting to date has mostly been about the former, and unfortunately, that content is suitable – for me – to one single use case: travel. Now I’m a bit unusual in that my commute is essentially zero (8 miles), but I think it’s fair to say that amount of time in our day that requires our attention far exceeds the amount of time that does not. Unless your commute is really pretty bad.
And then there are the technical limitations to the medium which Eleanor Kruszewski details here:
Its true that text is lossy, but in podcasting we often just think about the benefits. The costs for the users is fairly high. Skimming is impossible. Searching is impossible. Pacing is out of control – if its too fast, you must go back (which is very cumbersome given the poor interface of the web plugins I use here, but might be easier on, say, an iPod); if its too slow, youre stuck.
The point here is not to bash podcasting; I’m a big fan, for example, of the Gillmor Gang ‘casts. It’s just that I have yet to be blown away by either the technology or the content, simply because until we have good text transcription for audio, it remains a fairly opaque – and thus limited – medium for imparting information. Does that mean that there aren’t opportunities for the second type of content, the kind that doesn’t require my constant attention? Hardly. Like Tim, I can see some subtantial potential for music.
To date, however, podcasting is merely an “interesting” technology for me, not a “wow.” But maybe it’s just me.
