Podcasting: the best name?
Posted Monday, June 30th, 2008 1:17 pm by Dave Moyer
Since it first started with Adam Curry and Dave Winer (or should I say Dave Whiner) a few years ago, the medium of "podcasting" has grown in leaps and bounds, starting to work its' way into the lexicon of the average Joe. If you're unfamiliar with the basic concept, podcasts are, in essence, audio files distributed over RSS feeds (Real Simple Syndication). Users can subscribe to these feeds in an RSS client or a client specifically designed for podcasts, often referred to as a "podcatcher". Every time a new episode is added, the feed reader automatically downloads the show for a user to put on their iPod (hence the 'pod' prefix) or mp3 player, listen on their computer, or burn to a CD.I've been involved in this world for nearly 4 years now, producing and running tech podcasts nearly the whole way. For over a year, I created, hosted and produced the podcast that became the #1 podcast on the internet related to the Neopets online game: Neocast. This show is in the process of being resurrected by a Bitwire Media property, PinkPT.com. I also produced many podcasts related to historic preservation, including the Historic Colfax Podcast Series in 2006. This show, created for runners in the first annual Colfax Marathon, spotlighted the different landmarks around this street, and talked about its' rich history. It received over 121,000 downloads in the first 4 months of its' existence, and counting. Through all these years, I've always called these shows podcasts. That's what everyone knew them as, and that's what I learned to know them as.Not long after I got on the podcast bandwagon, the movement to find a better name for the medium seemed to take off. Leo Laporte of TWiT.tv proposed the term "netcast". Others tried "webcast", but that eventually became the term for a live streaming broadcast, either audio or video. TWiT's slogan is still "Netcasts you love from people you trust", but you'll notice that Leo, on his nationally syndicated radio show every week, tells listeners to visit TWiT, where he produces podcasts. Why doesn't he say netcasts? Why the inconsistency?I completely agree with the fact that the term podcasting is misleading. The most common question I get about my shows from people who aren't really tech-savvy is, "So, do I need an iPod?" Frustration with this question has caused websites like www.noipodrequired.com to sprout up, and videos like this one (my personal favorite) to surface around the net.Why don't I call my work netcasting (my favorite alternate term), and why doesn't Leo talk about his netcasts on his radio show? Because podcasting's grown too big. We're too late! Radio stations have started releasing podcasts of their shows, and general society has started to grow accustomed to the term. It's the same thing that happened to blogging. Do people "weblog" much anymore? Not really! This blog started out as one, but it's barely anything like a log of my life anymore. Why do we still call it blogging? Why do we call RSS distributed media content podcasts?We call those things those terms for the same reason that we still "dial" a phone. Aside from Steve Wozniak (who made a cell from a rotary phone), the majority of society hasn't literally "dialed" a phone for over 30 years. Why don't we tell you to push a number? Button this number? Because it's burned into general society. And that's a stain that has rarely ever, if ever, has been removable.Podcasting's got more than its' foot in the door, and we're too late to pull it back out. Agree? Disagree? Am I absolutely insane? Comment like the wind, oh readers.
photo credit: Made UndergroundTodo-Tattoo
Posted Monday, June 23rd, 2008 3:53 pm by Dave Moyer
I recently discovered that I've had yet another podcast episode dedicated to me (another being on CNET's Gadgettes), from Beth Skinner's The Skinny on Home Gadgets series. Apparently because I have an obsession with productivity and GTD (plus a love of office supplies), Beth decided to dedicate her episode on the Todo-Tattoo to me. How... flattering?Here’s a tongue-in-cheek tribute to anyone who’s ever scribbled a reminder on their hand or wrist. Err, that would be about everybody, right? Our To-Do Tattoo kit includes 12 graphic “To Do” forms that you can apply to your body wherever it’s most convenient (or creative) and a skin-safe, washable-ink gel pen. You’ll never again have to make lame excuses for missing bowling night or your mom’s birthay. Nifty peggable blistercard packaging.I think I'll stick with my Hipster PDA. Just saying. Either way, thanks for the mention, Beth! If you want to have a listen to the episode, here you go.
Thunderbird vs. Outlook: Email App Showdown!
Posted Sunday, June 22nd, 2008 10:05 pm by Dave Moyer
I use Gmail. I love the online access, it's speed, ease of use, oh what the heck- go read my post on the subject. However, lots of people just aren't ready to take the plunge to an all-web app yet.The two biggest desktop email applications right now are Microsoft Outlook, a favorite of business, and the open-source Mozilla Thunderbird. And it can be quite a conundrum to pick between the two! To help expel the confusion, misconception and fear about these apps, and help you make a good choice, it's time for...E-mail App Showdown!
Today, we're throwing two desktop email clients into the ring to duke it out to the death. There will be five rounds of bloodthirsty mayhem, so get comfortable as we enter the first round of our fight:Price
If your company isn't supplying you with a client, you'll always need to factor in affordability. Outlook costs $109.95 standalone, or it can be purchased as a part of Microsoft Office, $499 for the 2007 Edition on Windows.Thunderbird, on the other hand, is open-souce. Therefore, it's free. I don't think there's any way to beat that price. Plus, it would take a Tesla Roadster to make Outlook look cheap. Therefore, for this round, I'm giving Outlook a score of 2 out of 5, and Thunderbird a 5.TOTALS: Thunderbird: 5 | Outlook: 2It's time for round two...Features
Outlook has a built-in calendar application, as well as a to-do list, making it the only application you'll ever need for organization in most cases. Thunderbird doesn't include anything but email out of the box, but it can be integrated with Mozilla's Lightning add-on. However, the fact that Thunderbird supports extensions like Lightning or those from third parties makes its' feature repertoire ostensibly unlimitedTherefore, I'm making this round a tie, giving both apps a 4.TOTALS: Thunderbird: 9 | Outlook: 6You want your email fast! That's why we should sprint into our third round...Speed
This is obviously open to interpretation, and speed really depends on the system you're using these apps on, what you're using them with, and how you're using them. However, in all of my experience with these programs and the vast majority of benchmarks around the web, you'll see that Outlook tends to be a bit sluggish compared to Thunderbird. I'm giving Outlook a 3, and Thunderbird a 4.TOTALS: Thunderbird: 13 | Outlook: 9Thunderbird's pulling ahead, beating Outlook by 4 points! Can Redmond's gold envelope catch up? It's time for our penultimate round...Security
A Tweet I received today from jayhmt pretty much sums up this round:a) Thunderbird not ripe for virus exploits/attacks b) see: aThis is pretty much true! Because Outlook has a lot more users in the business environment and with not-so-tech-savvy folks who just use what was at the top of their Start menu when they got their computer, most of the email app vulnerabilities will be found in Outlook!Also, Thunderbird is open-source, which usually gives it a big advantage in developing and releasing patches. Microsoft tends to have a cycle of releasing patches, which can also attribute to their programs' security flaws. In this round, I'm giving Outlook a 3, and Thunderbird another 4.TOTALS: Thunderbird: 17 | Outlook: 12Thunderbird's building up distance with 5 points on Outlook! It looks grim for Microsoft's champ- can it pull ahead in our fifth, and final round...
