It's always nice to have some company on a mission, and I'm starting to garner a few compatriots. Shel Holtz wrote yesterday about whether a podcast that you can't subscribe to is really a podcast. I've mentioned this many a time: the singular characteristic that separates a podcast from a plain old web download is an accompanying RSS feed that allows listeners/viewers to subscribe.
If we harken back to the days of yore and look at the word "podcast", we surely must acknowledge that there are two words in there: "pod" and "cast". While the "pod" part is up for debate and has been the topic of much angst, the "cast" part is well understood.
The "cast" part of podcasting is a nod to the illusion that big media files can by played on demand. Through the magic of podcatchers and subscriptions, the relatively large audio and video files can be downloaded when the listener/viewer is not around. Hence, then the listener/viewer does sit down or turn on their audio player, the show plays instantly as if it was being broadcast.
So, no. A file without an accompanying RSS feed is not a podcast. Regardless of what people are calling it.
Ahh, the anonymous commenter. The biggest weenies on the planet are the aononymous commenters.
Yes, I am an authority. I have produced upwards of 60 podcasts since April of 2005 and written articles on the subject for many magazines, spoken and been interviewed on the subject of podcasting.
You would have known that had you bothered to click the "Author Profile", but that would be out of character for an aonymous troll.
Aw c'mon now, we can't expect a guy who's too lazy to click a link to actually READ something, can we?
I think the fact that these dorks post anonymously is a nod to the fact that they know they're idiots. Some kind of primordial Internet survival mechanism :)
And you are an authority? You have 12 RSS subscribers on bloglines. How do you get to define anything?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 25, 2006 7:42 AM | Permalink to Comment