Podcasting proliferation (procrastination)

I note with some inter­est that WSG reg­u­lar Syd­ney and Mel­bourne meet­ings are being recorded and will, at some time in the near future (i.e. after the meet­ings have hap­pened), be avail­able for down­load some­where. Ear­lier, WSG event Web Essen­tials ’05 was made avail­able for pod­cast down­load. On Sun­day, my church announced they were mak­ing ser­mons avail­able for down­load (and, just for the record, their site is get­ting re-done :P So ugly-factor will soon dis­ap­pear, and I’m hop­ing to fig­ure out a way to make the pod­casts more acces­si­ble when that happens!)

Last time I checked (and I keep a fairly close eye on these things in a web con­text), band­width and disc space didn’t get dra­mat­i­cally cheaper. Nor, I haz­ard, did record­ing equip­ment. So what gives? Sud­denly we all decide we can be both­ered? Is this just buzzword-compliance 101?

One of the rea­sons I have for being wary of pod­cast­ing is not so much band­width (which can be paid for if exceeded and so forth with­out too much dif­fi­culty), but stor­age space! Stor­age space, unless you’re buy­ing a server, is gen­er­ally rather scant. Espe­cially next to band­width: most hosts assume that your entire site will attract enough traf­fic to have it down­loaded in its entirety sev­eral times over. To be fair, so does base10solutions — but our stor­age is geared to the size site that, rel­a­tive to its band­width, could con­ceiv­ably attract enough traf­fic to go over with­out dif­fi­culty. What I’m talk­ing about is peo­ple with blogs on 6GB accounts with 100GB of trans­fers — it’s utterly disproprtionate.

The web doesn’t have much respect for per­ma­nence. Which is prob­a­bly one rea­son why low-storage accounts have lasted so long. With pod­cast­ing, if I put some­thing online I want it to stay there per­ma­nently, because it’s con­tent! A cer­tain image gallery won’t stay there for­ever, but to me that’s okay as it’s act­ing in a ‘closed com­mu­nity’ con­text — the only door is my web­site (to the best of my knowl­edge, few, if any, other peo­ple have linked to it).

So I have some burn­ing ques­tions about where all these resources are com­ing from, and if they’re sus­tain­able. It could just be that peo­ple have decided they’re pre­pared to spend money on host­ing now, and more money in the future if storage/bandwidth costs don’t scale as quickly as antic­i­pated. Or — and this is what I think is most likely hap­pen­ing, though not nec­es­sar­ily with the exam­ples cited — peo­ple are host­ing things with­out think­ing what they’ll do when they come to “that” — “that” being, of course, the inevitable wall at which point they need to expand/upgrade/reach further/… or delete content.

The other ques­tion, of course, is why now? We haven’t seen any quan­tum leap, so it must be that peo­ple are only now real­is­ing the poten­tial of the medium. You could argue for broad­band uptake, but I’d argue back that as pod­cast­ing is mostly spoken-word con­tent, its band­width require­ments are no greater than that of talk­back shows that have had 28.8kb streams since 1997. Maybe it’s just aware­ness. That’s where I’m lean­ing. I think it’s peo­ple see­ing a buzz­word that’s been given some degree of cre­dence — though lit­tle recog­ni­tion out­side of web cir­cles, accord­ing to a hand­ful of sur­veys (I’d meant to find links for that but haven’t got time… there was some­thing on CNet News.com a few months back) — and attempt­ing to catch the wave as it rises.

On the note of waves ris­ing, it should be noted that, yes, I am one of the nay-sayers that believe this “Web 2.0″ thing is a farce and will see some set­back. We might emerge more seman­tic or application-oriented or what­ever because of it — just like Web 1.0 left us with a bunch of empty stores and Flash web­sites that we’re still try­ing to get rid of/turn into a more appro­pri­ate use of the plat­form –, but money is going to be lost. So there are my thoughts on that, whilst try­ing to clear my mind of var­i­ous “I know noth­ing” stress before going to bed and sit­ting my last exam tomor­row. Hence “pro­cras­ti­na­tion” in this posts’ title.

Tags: , , , , , ,

posted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2005 at 8:23 pm by Josh, filed under General.

3 Responses to “Podcasting proliferation (procrastination)”

  1. Steve says:

    I think you’ll find the sud­den boom in the pop­u­lar­ity of pod­cast­ing strikes from the accpetance by soft­ware devel­op­ers and the wider, influ­en­tial Inter­net com­mu­nity — I mean:
    a: Peo­ple who MAKE pod­casts already are start­ing to do so with cor­po­rate spon­sor­ship, and so are earn­ing a liv­ing and get­ting http://www.ewanspence.com/blog/2005/11/02/im-nominated-for-a-bafta/ for it.

    b: The com­pa­nies who are (or have become) respon­si­ble for dis­tri­b­u­tion of pod­casts are recog­nis­ing the poten­tial for a new craze to over­take the semi-failed (or now under­ground P2P fad)

    c: REAL peo­ple are find­ing pur­poses for down­load­ing and lis­ten­ing to pod­casts (In my mind con­stantly sticks ‘The Health Show’ for lifestyle junkies — not just nerds) and ded­i­cated soft­ware is automat­ing the down­load and acces­si­bil­ity of sub­scribed podcasts.

  2. Josh says:

    It strikes me that b) is some­what depen­dent upon a) for suc­cess. And c) is depen­dent upon con­tent for success.

    So that doesn’t make sense of the Web Essen­tials’ and churches that are doing this with­out any finan­cial incen­tives… I’m strug­gling to see how this has instantly become more afford­able to the point of “okay we’re going to do it”.

    My only con­clu­sion at this stage is that it’s not par­tic­u­larly expen­sive (either due to lack of scal­a­bil­ity of a given solu­tion, as dis­cussed in my post, or because of down­load volumes/regularity) and ‘podcast-awareness’ in terms of © “Real Peo­ple” has made it worth­while. I can appre­ci­ated that some com­mer­cial con­tent pro­duc­ers are get­ting in on the act, but don’t think we should apply com­mer­cial incen­tives too broadly (as it’s not applic­a­ble to the wide­spread adop­tion of the medium in terms of expres­sion, not pas­sive audience).

  3. Matthom says:

    I hadn’t thought about these things that you men­tion… it is a rather inter­est­ing angle that you have. I’ve just been tak­ing part in all the pod­cast rush — not think­ing twice.

    Although I can’t fully address all of your points — what I do know, is that this “sud­den inter­est” in pod­cast­ing has a lot to do with RSS — so I guess it all wasn’t “out of the blue,” entirely.

    And you could, I guess, make the same argu­ment for RSS itself — why, two/three years ago — did RSS make such a big splash? Accord­ing to some (although I can’t be cer­tain), con­tent syn­di­ca­tion has been around since 1997 — or earlier.

    Other than that — I think it’s just the “new way” of get­ting “word” about your prod­uct or ser­vice out there. But I agree with your thoughts on your church — and things like that — why do they do it, con­ciev­ably with­out any true incen­tive (finan­cial or otherwise).

    Some good points.

Leave a Reply